Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to ask support for a rather straightforward budget-neutral amendment that will meaningfully contribute to our campaign against international terrorism and serve the long-term national securities interests of the United States.

My amendment would provide an additional $75 million for basic education programs directly reaching Pakistani children through the U.S. Agency for International Development or provided through local and international nongovernmental organizations offering reliable and effective basic education services. In doing so, the amendment serves long-term United States national security interests by helping to give Pakistani children an educational alternative to extremist, jihadi- teaching madrassas.

I am pleased that the Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee has agreed to accept this amendment. In their bill and committee report, the gentlewoman from New York and the rest of the members of the committee have recognized the importance of basic education assistance to our country's long-term national security interests. This amendment would complement and build off of those important efforts, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her willingness to work with me and accept my amendment.

The 9/11 Commission described a ``generational struggle'' against international terrorism, stressing the importance that any offensive efforts ``be accompanied by a preventative strategy.'' They also noted, ``It is hard to overstate the importance of Pakistan in the struggle against Islamic terrorism'' and urged the United States Government to support in Pakistan ``a comprehensive effort that extends from military aid to support for better education.'' Unfortunately, we have not yet gone far enough in that regard.

In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project gave the United States Government a D grade for not doing enough to support secular education. It noted, ``United States assistance to Pakistan has not moved sufficiently beyond security assistance to include significant funding for education efforts.'' And just a few months ago, our own State Department concluded, ``Pakistan remains a major source of Islamic extremism.''

This is precisely the time that we should be spending substantially more on education, where we should be broadening and deepening our relationship with the Pakistani people with aid that reaches directly into the Pakistani homes.

This amendment is an important first step in this endeavor by providing an extra $785 million infusion for basic education directly to Pakistani children, an extra $75 million that would come on top of Pakistani education funding already in the bill and what we have provided for before.

This amendment provides this additional $75 million for basic education by reprogramming existing funds within the Economic Support fund account; $50 million of the total $75 million will be drawn from that part of the Economic Support fund that provides direct budgetary support for the Pakistani Government.

Over the last several years, the Pakistani Government has been receiving hundreds of millions of dollars per year in a cash transfer. This amendment would ensure that $50 million of those funds be reprogrammed to ensure they reach Pakistani children and not simply be handed over to the Pakistani Government without direction. The other $25 million of the $75 million total would come from the nonbudgetary support component of the Economic Support fund.

All of us hope to support the Pakistani people in their efforts to achieve a stable, prosperous and free nation. But our national security interests here are much more acute. Will we be safe over the next 5, 10 or 20 years as thousands of more young people learn jihad at extremist madrassas instead of learning real-world skills to become productive citizens in their communities and in our shared world?

When asked about this amendment, former 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman

Lee Hamilton responded, ``Increased U.S. funding for basic education provided by the Tierney Pakistan Education Assistance Amendment will send a powerful message that we are committed to a better future for young Pakistanis and to supporting alternatives to radical Islamic education. Sending this kind of a message is hugely important to the future of America's relationship with the people of Pakistan and our efforts to combat radical Islam.''

It is past time to heed the 9/11 Commission's warning by fighting terrorism at its source, by stopping the process of extremism before it can begin, by helping the children of Pakistan to have an alternative to extreme madrassas. That should be at the core of our long-term national security strategy, that is what this amendment is all about.

Again I thank the gentlewoman from New York for accepting this amendment. I look forward to working with her to see that this additional funding for basic education programs directly reaching Pakistani children is retained in conference.

Mr. Chairman, if the chairwoman will yield, I want to again say I was in Pakistan at the same time that you were, approximately, and you witnessed, as did we, exactly what you are talking about. This is a great effort, to be able to go in the right direction, to put in public education as an alternative to the madrassas.

I thank you for the fine work you have done, and your committee as well.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to talk about an amendment that I would have offered but won't do so because I understand it's subject to a point of order.

Pakistan is scheduled to have crucial parliamentary elections in the fall of 2007 and the early winter of 2008. My amendment would withhold a portion of military aid to Pakistan unless those elections occurred and were free, fair and democratic.

Specifically, the amendment would have withheld $175 million out of a total of $250 million that's allocated under this bill for foreign military financing in Pakistan. These funds would be released when the Secretary of State determined, giving due consideration to the credible, independent judgment of reliable agencies that elections in Pakistan were free, fair and democratic. The amendment also asks that all steps of the election process, from voter registration on through vote tabulation, be reviewed in reaching any such judgment.

This amendment would send a powerful message to the people of Pakistan about the importance the United States places on the democratic process. Instead of just talking about the importance of democracy and saying that all peoples of the world should have these rights, the amendment quite literally would give Congress a chance to act consistently with its word.

Since the coup in which he rose to power 8 years ago, President Musharraf has taken some positive steps, but his record is, at best, mixed, especially recently. Today, President Musharraf is fighting the most serious challenge to his 8-year dictatorship. The United States is supporting him fully, and I guess that means that the message from the United States to the Pakistani public would seem clear: The Bush administration sees the war on terrorism as topping everything, even support for democracy.

On March 9, President Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was apparently seen as threatening to President Musharraf's plans to consolidate his power. That triggered street protests demanding Musharraf's resignation, followed by a government-led crackdown on lawyers, the opposition political parties, and the media. Thousands of lawyers nationwide have led marches joined by women's groups, journalists and opposition politicians.

The roots of this crisis go back to a blind bargain that Washington made after 9/11 with a general and the army that had, up until then, been the main patrons of the Taliban. The administration ignored Musharraf's despotism in return for his promises to crack down on al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, despite $10 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, that deal is shattered.

In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project issued a report card noting that Musharraf has made efforts to take on the threat of extremism, but has not shut down extremist-linked madrassas or terrorist camps.

Taliban forces still pass freely across the Pakistan-Afghani border and operate in Pakistani tribal areas. These border groups gained political legitimacy last year when President Musharraf signed a series of dubious peace deals with the Pakistan Taliban.

Extremist madrassas remain, and the extremism only becomes more pervasive and dangerous. Madrassa students are burning books, CDs and DVDs. Women in Islamabad have had acid doused in their faces for their failure to wear burkas, and have been harassed for driving cars.

The military has refused to put a brake on their extremism. As terrorism author Ahmed Rashid said, Musharraf promised the international community that he would purge pro-Taliban elements from his security service and convinced the Bush administration that his philosophy of ``enlightened moderation'' was the only way to fend off Islamic extremism, but Pakistan today is still the center of global Islamic terrorism. Our own State Department concluded the same thing several weeks ago.

Mr. Rashid is correct in saying that instead of confronting this threat, the army has focused on keeping Musharraf in power. In trying to spook the West into continuing to support him, he exaggerates grossly the strength of the Islamic parties and warns that they might take over his nuclear-armed country.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is the United States would be far safer if we supported a truly representative Pakistan government that could marginalize the Jihadists rather than placing all of its eggs in a Musharraf basket. A better outcome for all would be that everybody participate in free and fair elections, and we should act in favor of democracy with those policies.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Councillor Leonard F. O'Leary of Salem, MA. Councillor O'Leary recently announced that he would not be seeking reelection. It will be the first time since 1984 when

he was first elected as Councillor of Salem's Ward Four that the O'Leary name will not appear on the ballot.

Lennie honorably served twelve consecutive, two-year terms, and his twenty-four years on the Salem City Council rank him among the longest serving City Councillors in Salem's long and storied history. He earned the respect of his colleagues on the Council over the years as reflected by their electing him Council President on four occasions during his tenure.

Lennie's institutional knowledge made him a valuable resource on the Council as he served as Chair on all of the Council's committees, including the Finance Committee and Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs. He also served as the longtime Council Liaison to the City's Board of Health. Councillor O'Leary served his country as a member of the National Guard from 1961-1967, and he took great pride in advocating in support of his fellow veterans while on the Council.

In his over two decade long Council career, Lennie was legendary in his devotion to his Ward Four constituents, and he provided them with reliable and responsive service. He kept them informed with regular neighborhood meetings and tended to their every need whether by filing measures to prohibit overnight parking of heavy vehicles in residential neighborhoods or meeting with engineers and DPW crews to make sure road work proceeded in a timely and reasonable manner. Lennie advocated tirelessly for his Ward Four neighbors appearing at hundreds of Board of Appeals, Planning Board, and Conservation Committee hearings to make sure their concerns had a voice and were heard. He was rewarded by support across his Ward that was broad and deep.

Lennie would be the first to admit that he did not do it all alone. He would tell you that he had good friends and that he had good fortune in working with four mayors and countless dedicated colleagues on the Council. However, most important to Lennie was the full and untiring support he received from his wife Mary, who often accompanied him to those late night Council and Board meetings. Mary provided counsel that he could trust.

This week in Salem, Lennie's colleagues, friends, neighbors, and family will gather to celebrate and thank Councillor Leonard F. O'Leary for 24 years of unselfish public service. It is a most appropriate and deserving recognition for someone who has given so much of himself to the City of Salem.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, the amendment I and my colleague, Rush Holt, are offering this evening is really quite simple. It reduces the $8.1 billion specified by the Missile Defense Agency by approximately $1 billion and takes a modest but necessary step in refocusing on missile defense policy.

I think we should make no mistake about it, we have spent $107 billion since the days of the Reagan administration on missile defense. We have had years of unanticipated cost growth, unacceptable schedule delays, and unaccountable management by the Pentagon.

It is time for a change in that policy. It is time for a change in how we address ballistic missile defense. We have plenty of other priority national security matters and more pressing homeland security needs to address.

How much longer can Congress continue to acquiesce and authorize billions of dollars in funds for this deeply flawed system?

The Pentagon continues to build before testing; it is a recipe for waste. We can tell my colleagues that if the status quo continues, the Congressional Budget Office projects the total cost for missile defense will peak in the year 2016 at about $15 billion per year, excluding cost risk.

If you add in cost risk, the CBO knows that the Pentagon's projected investment needs for missile defense might go to $18 billion. We are going to hear from others here that North Korea, Iran, and China have the potential for proliferation of missile technology, and all of that is not sufficient reason for opposing this amendment. The fact of the matter is that argument would rest on the false assumption that the current system could actually defend this country against those risks. It can't because it doesn't work. It continues to not be able to work because it lacks operational testing that is realistic. That hasn't occurred, and it does not look like it is likely to occur any time soon.

We know and understand the threats confronting this country, and a $1 billion cut in the Missile Defense Agency, the way it is done here, will certainly not compromise our national security. And, in fact, by forcing the Pentagon to test before it builds, it will actually make sure that we don't have false securities.

This Congress should not continue to acquiesce in the authorization on this deeply flawed system. We have to come to terms with certain stubborn realities and have the courage to change course.

We are not alone in thinking this way. There were seven reports issued last year from nonpartisan groups, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, the Pentagon's Director of Operational, Test and Evaluation, all arrived at the same conclusion: ``Change in this program is imperative.''

Our amendment will focus on high-risk, longer-term research programs and target those initiatives that simply do not warrant immediate congressional support. It reflects the views of the conferees to last year's defense authorization bill who wrote that they ``believe that the emphasis of our missile defense efforts should be on the current generation of missile defense capabilities.''

I would now like yield to my colleague, Mr. Holt.

Madam Chairman, I simply close by saying this is a system which has not been realistically tested in the operational sense. The moneys that are being cut here are not necessary for near- term programs. They are high risk, down the road.

It is appropriate for us to redirect those spendings on issues that are more immediate in terms of our national security defense at this point in time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

We are told over and over again in committee hearings from experts and scholars of all natures that we could close 50 percent of the achievement gap

that we see in our country if we have effective preschool, prekindergarten programs. Head Start is just that kind of a program.

We see over and over again the evidence showing us it has a positive economic and social impact across this Nation, particularly in its comprehensive nature, the fact that it deals with education, deals with health issues and social implications.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my State, 80 percent of 3-year- olds are still not enrolled in prekindergarten or Head Start programs. We need to be expanding this program for all of the good things it does because we need to take advantage of that opportunity to close that gap.

One of the ways that we are going to do that is to attract quality teachers. I am glad to see in this bill that Mr. Sestak has filed an amendment to provide up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness for college graduates who commit to teach in the Head Start field. We have raised the standard of the teachers that we want, requiring them to meet a certain grade. That means we are going to have to pay people in order to go into this profession because it is still going to cost them considerably to get that degree. If we are going to do that, we have to step forward. I think Mr. Sestak's idea, which we have been talking about in the higher education reauthorization bill for some time, is one way of doing that. Loan forgiveness for early education teachers over a period of years will allow us to have that program meet the pinnacle that we need it to reach.

For this and many other reasons, I think this bill is a good bill and deserves our attention and our support. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 268.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as we discussed already here, whistleblowers play a key role in holding government accountable, and this legislation takes the important and long-overdue step of providing whistleblower protections for Federal workers who specialize in national security issues.

This amendment was carefully crafted to clarify the process by which national security whistleblower information, that is, information which may evidence a violation of law, rule or regulation of gross mismanagement, fraud, waste, or abuse is shared with executive branch officials and Members of Congress. It specifically addresses information possessed by whistleblowers involving intelligence sources and methods. And in those instances that is information that is customarily provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. It also makes clear that information of concern relating to the Department of Defense Special Access Programs, or SAPS as they are currently called, should be reported to the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Overall, this clarifying amendment strengthens the bill by ensuring that current and former employees of the intelligence community, the FBI, the military and other national security elements that possess sensitive classified national security information receive adequate protections against reprisals under the law. Further, it will better ensure the protection of classified sensitive information at issue in many of these cases. So I urge my colleagues to support what I believe is a sensible amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposing the motion, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this motion, and assume that means we will have unanimity on final passage.

This appears to track President Clinton's executive order, and it is, in fact, current law. To that extent, we have no difficulty in accepting it.

The motion to recommit seems to extend the coverage of the Whistleblower Protection Act to whistleblowers who report violations of President Clinton's guidelines of religious exercise and religious expression in the Federal workplace.

The guidelines apply to all civilian executive branch agencies, officials, and employees of the Federal workforce, they specify which religious expressions by covered employees, and under what circumstances, are permitted or may be regulated or prohibited.

The guidelines were issued by President Clinton to clarify how to address the sometimes difficult situations in the workplace where an agency must balance the free expression rights of Federal workers with the rights of other workers and the obligation of Federal authorities not to engage in the official promotion of religion.

By providing greater clarity, the guidelines have helped to avoid conflicts in the Federal workplace over the balance between religious expression and the obligations of the Federal Government to the Constitution, other employees and the general public.

With that, as I said, it seems to track that executive order; and if it does, we are happy to accept it.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

Madam Chairman, it is the policy of the United States to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. It is the policy of the United States to protect the exercise of workers of full freedom of association. It is the policy of the United States to protect their self-organizing and their ability to designate representatives of their own choosing.

You wouldn't think that were true to listen to what we are hearing from the other side. It is the best man-bite-dog story we have heard, and the irony is not lost when people stand up there professing to care about the workers on this, while all the while, the National Labor Relations Act, section 7, protects those rights, and section 8 prohibits a variety of practices, and is not doing a very good job of that.

It would prohibit employers from interfering with or coercing or intimidating or discriminating against employees in the exercise of their rights. It has not been successful in that fact at all.

These protections have not been enough. The reality is when employees want to try to organize a union, one out of every four get fired illegally. Fired. Twenty-five percent of the people for the union activity. Their remedy? Go to court for years and years, and then if you are successful, you might get rehired, you might get some back pay, but, of course, you would have to offset that with whatever you earned in the meantime. Too many employers think that is a pretty good deal, a risk worth taking.

In 2005, 31,000 workers received back pay because of illegal employer discrimination. That should do away with any thought that this is just a minor problem. Over three-quarters, 78 percent of employers in organizing drives forced their employees to attend one-on-one meetings against the union with their own supervisors. There is no ``truth squad'' in there and nobody making sure what they say is fair and balanced. Ninety-two percent of employers force employees to attend mandatory captive audience meetings, again, the union, and three- quarters of employers in organizing drives hire consultants or union busting firms to fight the organizing drive. How naive would we have to be to think that those union busters are in there to make a fair and level playing ground?

The fact of the matter is employers have also been notorious in dragging out the initial negotiations, for years. That is not good faith bargaining as it is supposed to be protected in that Act. They are making a mockery of the National Labor Relations Act, unless we have this bill take effect.

If this were internationally, if we were looking at elections, we would expect that people would be able to have a playing field. We would expect there would be some protection against being pressured to support one particular position. We would expect that there would be some protection against a direction that you vote for a specific candidate. But that is not what is happening here.

Madam Chairman, let me tell you that what we are doing here is simply altering the playing field a bit back to fairness. We have had, for years, the ability that you could either have an election, or you could have an ability to sign a majority of people that you wanted. At some point, a few decades ago, they changed that dynamic and said we are going to let the employer veto that choice.

We are rebalancing this here. We are going to give the choice and the ability to balance back to the worker, so they can choose whether they want an election to indicate their ability to organize or whether they want a majority of people to sign a card. They want that fair process. We need it because their ability to do that protects them, and that is what we should be about.

Madam Speaker, in just a few weeks, America will begin its fifth year in the Iraq conflict. In that time, 3,117 members of the United States military have died, and over 23,000 American soldiers have been injured. $532 billion has been appropriated by Congress or requested by the administration.

You only need to talk or read letters from many of the returning military personnel or their families to understand that the mission in Iraq is unclear and the goals remain undefined. Our men and women are not certain if they are fighting Sunnis or Shiites, and often it depends on where they are in order to determine the answer to that dilemma. In essence, our military personnel are in the midst of a civil war, the flames of which were fanned by centuries-old animosities.

This week Congress has been addressing a resolution that reiterates its support for the troops and states clearly its opposition to escalation.

The first point could easily go unspoken. After all, we are exercising the very freedom of speech and debate that our Constitution requires, the public demands, and our men and women in uniform serve to protect.

The second point of the resolution speaks to the clear determination, as evidenced on November 7, 2006, that America does not support the President's planned escalation of this conflict.

Three previous troop buildups have already proven unsuccessful. In the first, from November 2004 to January 2005, troop levels in Iraq increased by about 18,000 troops. They did that in advance of the Iraqi elections held on January of 2005, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents rose to 61 from 52 the previous month, an increase of 17 percent.

On the second troop buildup, from June 2005 to October 2005, troop levels increased by approximately 21,500, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents in October of 2005 rose to 90, from 70 just 2 months earlier, an increase of 29 percent.

And the third troop buildup occurred from May 2006 to November 1 of 2006 when U.S. troop levels in Iraq increased by approximately 17,500 troops, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents in October of 2006 rose to 180, from 100 just 4 months earlier, an increase this time of 80 percent.

Now the President says he want to change course, but once again he proposes to only stay the course as he seeks to send in more personnel, and we still wait for the Iraqi forces to stand up.

Madam Speaker, 132 of my colleagues and I exercised the correct judgment in October of 2002 when we voted against the war in Iraq. We recognized then that this administration's claims that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent and direct threat to the United States were hyped up and many rightly foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would, as one colleague recently said, be of undetermined length, of undetermined cost and undetermined consequences.

Tragically, this administration was not deterred. It has been flat wrong on pretty much all of its pre-war and subsequent judgments with respect to Iraq, with its questionable use of intelligence, its failure to plan, and its failure for far too long to protect our troops once they were there.

We knew then what has become painfully obvious since, that rather than open a new front and destabilize a new area in Iraq, we should have secured Afghanistan and addressed terrorism at its source as it was embodied by Osama bin Laden and others. The proposed escalation is not the answer.

Why, after such a debacle and such a dismal record, would this administration even think to follow the advice of the same people that got us into this situation in the first place?

The proposed surge or escalation is as baseless as was going into Iraq in the first place.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate, even that part that is unclassified, which I would imagine or speculate certainly puts the administration's best foot forward, states that even if violence is diminished, Iraq's absence of unifying leaders makes a political reconciliation doubtful.

Not enough capable Iraqi troops are showing up to fight. Not enough armed vehicles are available to protect the new American deployments. The State Department cannot recruit enough civil officials to manage the latest push to turn up the electricity in Iraq or to help with reconstruction.

And so Congress must, and I think they are going to this week, pass a resolution that reiterates our support to our troops and opposes the escalation. That action, I sincerely hope, will be followed by action which will prohibit the use of Federal funds to increase the number of troops above the number existing in Iraq on January 9, 2007.

The large majority of Americans are waiting for action by this Congress to insist that we begin redeploying our troops from Iraq and complete that redeployment as quickly as possible in a measure done in months, not years.

In essence, this week's action should be the beginning of a relatively short process, culminating in the redeployment of American troops from Iraq, and energizing diplomatic efforts and international efforts to stabilize that nation and ensure its security, while it provides for a platform to redirect the necessary attention to the unfinished business of Afghanistan and focus, Madam Speaker, our efforts on terrorism, both short term and long term.

I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to support this resolution and take what I expect will be the first step in charting a new course in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, some of us on this side of the aisle are not at all upset that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to debate this particular issue. We hope it goes on forever and that the American public is tuned in to watch just what motivates that side of the aisle.

The fact of the matter is that the debate that they are having is between them and the White House. When people ask that the Speaker come down to present a case as to why there should be protection of the Speaker of the House, they miss the point that the people motivating that are the White House, who decided after 9/11 that the Speaker of the House, then a Republican, Mr. Hastert, should, in fact, have the kind of the security that Americans would expect for the person who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States and that the President in this instance is consistent in that, in believing that no matter what party is holding the Speaker of the House position ought to also have that protection.

I don't think that they can propose a safer way to get the Speaker from Washington to California and back so that she can conduct the considerable responsibilities of her position and get back to do those in a timely fashion other than to fly back and forth.

But because some of my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently still don't understand it and don't understand whom they are debating with, and I understand that sometimes it is difficult to understand what is coming out of the White House, but just one more time so that even they can get it, I would like to yield to my colleague from Tennessee and ask him to read once again the other side of the debate as presented by the President of the United States in his own words.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not going to take too much longer except to say that I for one hope that they continue to debate this silly amendment that has already been accepted, that the American public tunes in so they understand exactly what is going on here and they reconfirm the reason why the majority has shifted to this party that is now in the majority of the House.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Yes, to the gentleman. We are operating under an open rule, which, I think, equals the number of times that the other majority of the last session had open rules during their entire session.

Mr. Chairman, based on that, I would say to my colleague from New York that that is exactly why I hope the conversation continues on this amendment that has been accepted so that we can drive home the point again that this is the choice.

But in winding up, I would just say since we have accepted this amendment that perhaps if there is going to be more conversation, it ought to be focused on how Members suggest that they protect the Speaker of the House who has to get from Washington to California and back in some manner safely other than what the President proposes, and then they can put that information to the White House and continue the debate with the President.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

Madam Speaker, in the last session, the Democrats did, in fact, file a bill that would have done a lot of things to make colleges more accountable and accessible. Unfortunately, that is not the bill that was moved through Congress, and very little of it got discussed or was paid attention to in the committee.

This year, we hope to refile bills along that way and work in a bipartisan manner so those larger issues will have that opportunity, and we intend on doing that. In the meantime, this is a down payment. It is a down payment on the need to make college more affordable and accessible by cutting the interest rates on student loans, as has been described.

We have more to do. We want to increase Pell Grants. Mr. Keller said that, and he is right. Last year, of course, the majority of then Republicans had a wonderful opportunity to do that. Instead, they decided to cut a net of $12 billion, basically to help the powerful and the privileged. They are busy trying to make sure that people have an incentive to get into a loan market for which no incentive is needed.

In fact, there will be very little impact on lenders with the way they are paying for this particular bill. They will digest that very readily and still make a handsome profit. As Mr. Kind from Wisconsin said, there is every opportunity for us to do more direct loans and to recapture more money, to give further Pell Grants and campus-based aid like student work-study.

We need to get States to reinvest more in education. They are falling off the cliff since 2001 in terms of their investment. We have a good bill that we will file and hopefully have the help of the Republicans. We will address that situation to get them back into the game.

We need to allow more tax deductibility for tuition so that families have a break. And moving forward, if we are serious about how much education is required, given the nature of the workplace, given nature of the competitiveness of the international arena, we need more college students.

There was a day when 8 years of school worked well for the agricultural era. Then it went to the industrial age where 12 years of school was necessary. We are beyond that now. For technology and other reasons, we need people to have more than 12 years; that means college, whether 2 years or 4 years. That means making sure that kids know they can get into college and afford to pay for it, with Pell Grants, with work-study, they still need loans.

I don't know where the gentlewoman from North Carolina, what her college was, but if she knew the rest of the country, they need to borrow, they need a break in their loans. We are happy to provide that here today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise today in support of this increase in the minimum wage. We should all be a bit ashamed of the fact that it has been 10 years since we have had the last increase. Every year low-wage workers are left behind while CEOs get more and more money. This is not some valid exercise of a well-oiled free enterprise system. This is a disgrace, and most Americans are repulsed by that fact.

Some people here are trying to make the case today that there is some benefit of a full-time worker making $10,700 a year, leaving a family of three $6,000 below the poverty level. There can be no benefit, Mr. Speaker, in that condition.

Let us be clear. Raising the minimum wage is going to dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans, whether Milton Friedman agrees or not. When you make $4,400 more a year than you made in the past year, full-time year-round workers with a family of three can afford a year's worth of groceries. They can afford 1\1/2\ years of heat and electricity. They can afford 9 months of rent, and they can afford the full 2-year tuition for a community college degree for a parent or a child. That is how we get Americans on the prosperity ladder. That is how we give them opportunity.

There are those that argue that the increase in the minimum wage is going to hurt the economy. I suggest that that is not true at all and that rhetoric doesn't comport with reality. 650 economists say otherwise; reality says otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the Fiscal Policy Institute reports that States with a higher minimum wage than that have added jobs to the retail industry.

We have to move in the right direction with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I associate myself with the remarks that she made at the beginning of this proceeding here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, the President's warrantless wiretapping program should have been conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provisions. The threat of terrorism demands careful response.

The government has to have strong powers, including the authority to carry out various forms of electronic surveillance. FISA, as was amended over 20 times, updated, provides those powers. People want to be protected, but they do not want their legislators in an election year to just start handing away their constitutional rights and privileges.

I agree with the assessment of one of the witnesses before our committee: such a complex and proven statute as FISA should be amended only with great caution and only on the basis of a public showing of need.

This administration's concerns about FISA were narrow and they were few and could have been resolved with clarifications. But we proposed bipartisan legislation that would take care of it. This majority chose not to take that legislation up.

Instead, they have proposed this broad and sweeping and over-reaching bill that, regardless of what my colleagues may say on the other side, is a dream of the White House, and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush.

To protect the constitutional rights and to ensure the effective application of government powers, government surveillance should be focused. That focus can best be achieved through a system of checks and balances that are implemented through executive but also legislative and judicial review.

The bill before us effectively eliminates review. The bill before us simply gives the executive carte blanche to intercept communications of United States citizens without making adequate attention to preserving the liberties and civil rights that are embedded in our Constitution.

It is unnecessarily broad and it is harmful for the interests of Americans. In making sure that the government has all of the powers that it needs, we have to have a law that ensures citizens their rights will be adequately protected even as their safety is secure.

Therefore, this bill fails because it does not allow for essential protections. Except in emergencies, there must be prior judicial approval. Congress should be fully informed of all surveillance activity and carefully oversee it.

Any repeal of FISA's exclusivity provision is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It would turn back the clock 30 years. There is a reason FISA was passed into law, and those reasons exist today.

It is clear, after having listened at classified and open hearings, that the President's program of warrantless wire tapping should have proceeded to intercept communications only under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's, FISA's, provisions. The Threat of Terrorism demands a careful response.

The Government must have strong powers, including the authority to carry out various forms of electronic surveillance. Still, to protect Constitutional rights and to ensure effective application of those powers, government surveillance must be focused. That focus can best be achieved through a system of checks and balances implemented through executive, legislative and judicial review.

I agree with the assessment of one of our witnesses with a Policy and Technology background: Such a complex and proven statute as FISA should be amended only with great caution and only on the basis of a public showing of need.

After all this time since the 12/05 disclosure of the program the Administration has made public only limited, quite narrow arguments that FISA is in need of further amendment:

(1) The Attorney General's explanation of problems involving the timely invocation of FISA emergency exception. In other words, in some cases the process was making it difficult to get a warrant application processed within the 72 hours allowed by the statute after interception commenced . . .

Those problems, evidence shows, are due in part to the paperwork burdens created by the Executive Branch and perpetuated by this Administration.

That problem it is largely self-inflicted and is not due to any delay by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The remedy--direct the President to report to Congress on the need for more resources, Asst. AG's, etc., and make any legislative and procedural changes that are necessary (i.e. if more than 72 hours post- emergency intercept needed for warrant).

The Harman-Conyers bill addresses these matters, though it is not even actually necessary to pass an amendment or a law to meet these goals.

(2) A concern was put forth that a court order is necessary for the interception of foreign-to-foreign communications of non-U.S. persons that happen to pass through the U.S., where they can be more readily accessed by U.S. government agencies.

In other words, some in the agency were interpreting the law to require a warrant even if U.S. persons weren't involved but the communication passed through the U.S. Many experts believe that to be the wrong interpretation. Still,

The remedy--presumably a narrow clarification could be crafted. Clearly, any updating of FISA can be done in a way that is Constitutional and responsive to the Executive branch's needs.

Measures before this body purporting to simply give the Executive carte blanch to intercept communications of U.S. citizens without making adequate attention to preserving the liberties and civil rights imbedded in our Constitution are unnecessarily broad and harmful to the interests of Americans.

In ensuring that the government has all the powers it needs, we must have a law that assures citizens their rights will be adequately protected even as their safety is secured.

Therefore, any amendment or bill must provide that: Except in emergencies--there must be prior judicial approval;

Congress must be fully informed of all surveillance activity and carefully oversee it; Interceptions of contents of communications of U.S. persons must be focused on particular individuals suspected of being terrorists or particular physical or virtual addresses used by terrorists; The threshold should require that there is probable cause to believe the target is a terrorist and that the intercept will yield intelligence; and

FISA must be the exclusive means to carry out intelligence surveillance within the U.S. Any repeal of FISA's exclusivity provision is wrong. It would turn the clock back 30 years and do away with legislative oversight and judicial review. There were valid reasons that FISA was passed. Those reasons still exist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California.

Mr. Speaker, many Members recently voted against the previous question on the rule. We did so because we wanted a substitute, a resolution that mirrored Senate Resolution 565, which was a measure which was bipartisan and which was designed to unite this Congress and the country. That is the way in fact that we wish to remember and honor those 9/11 victims.

Unfortunately, the Speaker and the majority of the House have chosen division and partisanship. The gentleman from Michigan mentioned a moment ago that on Monday, September 11, the Nation took off a day from partisanship. We only wish that the Speaker had joined in that. But by proposing a resolution referring to issues that are partisan and divisive, once again, a chance for unity has been missed not in the Senate but here in the House.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich this past Sunday recalled FDR's use of the phrase ``the warm courage of national unity in a time of challenge.'' That is exactly what we need in these times of challenge.

FDR mentioned his realization of our interdependence on each other, that we cannot merely, take but that we must give as well; and that if we are going to move forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline.

Since September 11, this Nation has not been called to that higher unity and shared sacrifice. Instead, we have seen divisive legislation and tax cuts favoring the few. We should instead honor the fallen victims of 9/11 and their families' sacrifices and the responders and our military and our intelligence communities for their bipartisan efforts. We should resolve to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Now, Chairmen Kean and Hamilton wrote on September 11, 2006, that their commission's December report card on limitation garnered 10 C's, 12 D's, and 4 F's. And they listed there still remain to be done at least 10 things, the acceptance of which and the completion of which would in fact honor the September 11 people.

We should allocate our homeland security dollars wisely, because now they are being spread around like revenue sharing. States have to be held to create and practice emergency response plans. Congress shouldn't wait until 2009, three years from now, to give first responders a slice of the broadest spectrum for emergency communication.

We still need to do a better job with information sharing among government agencies, particularly those at the State and local levels. The FBI reform needs to speed up even as it moves in the right direction. The privacy and civil liberties oversight board must be empowered as a strong voice on behalf of individual and civil liberties, especially as the executive gets stronger authorities. We need to better screen passengers against a comprehensive terrorist watch list before they board craft. We need to do a better job of reaching out to the Muslim world so that America can be seen as a source of hope and opportunity and not despair.

Congress needs to reform itself. The oversight committees need stronger powers over budgets and jurisdictions. And the prevention of terrorists' access to nuclear weapons must be elevated above all other problems of national security. To do all this, we need the warm courage of unity, not partisanship, not divisive resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, this would be an excellent time for the leadership of this House to match rhetoric with unifying actions.