Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Captain Jack B. Howey, a member of my Veterans Advisory Committee who passed away on April 14, 2008.

Captain Howey had 9 years of enlisted service and 18 years of commissioned service in the Active Duty Army, the Army Reserve and the New York Army National Guard. A veteran of the Korean War, he served as an advisor to the South Korean Army. He retired in 1974 from the 204th Engineer Battalion of the New York Army National Guard.

As the Director of the Tioga County Veterans Service Agency and as a member of my Veterans Advisory Committee, he worked diligently to ensure that fellow veterans were getting all the benefits that they deserved in the quickest way possible. He particularly focused on ensuring that veterans had adequate transportation so that they could get to hospitals and outpatient clinics for medical treatment. He also shared his hard work with others by writing articles in the Owego Pennysaver to alert veterans of any news that might be of use to them.

Captain Howey was born on October 24, 1928 in Oneonta, New York, to the late Morris and Eva Burrell Howey. He leaves behind his wife, Audrey; sister, Maureen; son, Clark; stepdaughters Tammy and Ellen; and stepsons Mark, Tom and Henry. He is also survived by his grandchildren: Maria, Randi, Chance, Andrew, Amanda and Justin, and great- grandchildren: Christian, Justin and Shea.

He was involved in many organizations, including serving as past commander and life-long member of the Owego Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 1371 and as a member of the American Legion, Quiet Birdmen, Binghamton Hanger and Harris Hill Soaring Corporation. In addition to his work for veterans, Captain Howey was also an avid pilot who worked as a pilot instructor and examiner.

His exceptional dedication to veterans, as well as his own faithful service to his country and community, is to be commended. I express my deepest sympathies to Captain Howey's family, and the entire Tioga County community, for their loss.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1126 provides for consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Homeland Security. The rule makes in order 15 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee.

This rule also takes steps to prevent terrorist acts against our Nation by allowing for the text of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, to be added upon House passage of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, and for the whole package to be sent over to our colleagues in the Senate. The Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House on May 22, 2007, by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 412-0, provides strong new enforcement tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties for alien smuggling, human trafficking and slavery, drug trafficking, and terrorism or espionage.

It also subjects smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties for transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily injury.

It directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all available terrorist watch lists, alien smugglers, and smuggled individuals who are interdicted at the U.S. land, air and sea borders.

And it tightens proof requirements for distinguishing covert transportation of family members or others for humanitarian reasons for which the penalties are less severe.

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, the Coast Guard has served as the primary agency responsible for our Nation's maritime security. The fact that the Coast Guard has risen to meet this heightened responsibility, while at the same time continuing to fulfill its nonsecurity missions, is a testament to the commitment and honor to the service men and women of the Coast Guard.

The bill that this rule provides for consideration will ensure that the Coast Guard can continue to perform all facets of its mission in an uncompromising way. H.R. 2830 provides the necessary resources by authorizing 1,500 additional Coast Guard personnel and increasing the funding to the Coast Guard by $8.4 billion, $200 billion over the President's request.

The underlying legislation sets requirements for security around vessels that transport, and facilities that process, liquefied natural gas, giving the Coast Guard the responsibility for enforcing security zones and requiring it to certify that State or local governments have the necessary resources before they can assist in security patrols around facilities. It also directs the Department of Homeland Security to analyze the threat of a terrorist attack on gasoline and chemical shipments and report to Congress.

H.R. 2830 will bolster port security and immigration enforcement by establishing an Assistant Commandant for Port and Waterways Security, authorizing additional maritime security teams and by establishing the Waterway Watch Program whereby civilian boaters can notify the Coast Guard of suspicious activity.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act enhances safety standards in one of America's most dangerous occupations--the one portrayed on the popular television series ``The Deadliest Catch''--by increasing safety equipment requirements on fishing vessels, requiring training for vessel operations, and by changing the appeals process for suspending and revoking a mariner's license.

The bill also addresses one of the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Systems Program, which has been beleaguered by several well-publicized delays, cost overruns, and problems with the designs of certain replacement assets. The bill increases accountability for the Deepwater Program by addressing systemic contract management problems and establishing a civilian chief acquisition officer reporting directly to the Coast Guard commandant.

H.R. 2830 also requires ships to begin installing water treatment systems to reduce the spread of invasive species in ballast water carried by the ships. These requirements are a step in the right direction because they will protect the waterways of every State and territory of the United States, and the industries and communities that rely upon them, from aquatic invasive species that enter the waters of the United States via the ballast water systems of commercial vessels. The bill also addresses other environmental concerns by requiring double hulls for U.S. ships carrying over 600 cubic meters of oil and providing for implementation of an international agreement on maritime pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration is the product of extensive hearings and consideration by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee. I commend the chairmen and ranking members of those committees for their commitment to addressing the needs of the Coast Guard and our Nation's maritime security.

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

I thank my friend from Texas for his comments.

I would just like to make two points in that regard. The first point is that he mentioned that this bill doesn't deal with the LNG issue. And I would beg to differ. This bill ensures that the Coast Guard will be there to ensure and protect the safety of our liquefied natural gas facilities that are built out in the deep water or out in the ocean. It's critical. Security is absolutely critical to these facilities, and that's exactly what this bill insures.

Secondly, my friend mentions that we have not done anything about energy. Well, I would respectfully say that anyone who says that, I would have to ask them where have they been for the past 16 months. We have done a great deal with respect to energy. The difference is that we haven't done anything to help large oil companies because we believe that they are part of the problem. We have done things to help develop alternative energy, because that is the future of America. It's about making America less dependent on foreign oil and less dependent on the large oil companies. That's what we have done. That's what Democrats believe in, and that's what we will continue to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Hall.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Independence, Mr. Markey.

Mr. Speaker, one point that I would like to make at this time is that the gentleman talks about oil and talks about energy, but the thing that he fails to point out is that gas and oil are limited, they are not going to be there forever. We need to stop our reliance upon fossil fuels, upon gas and oil, and start to focus on renewable alternative energy and become less dependent on foreign oil, less reliant upon fossil fuels.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Stupak.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

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

That is correct. I do not have any additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have sat here for the past hour and listened to so many speakers talk about energy, when the underlying bill is actually the Coast Guard reauthorization bill. But if our colleagues want to talk about energy, then I think we should point out some very obvious facts to them.

First of all, when the Clinton administration finished in the White House, oil was at $27 a barrel. It is now at $119 a barrel, a significant increase. Yet they try to point the finger at this Congress, this Democratic Congress that has been in the majority for 16 months. Yet on every bill that we bring up, every bill that the Democrats bring before this Congress that attempts in any way, shape, fashion or form to reduce the price of oil, we get nothing but ``no'' votes from the other side of the aisle. That is their response to high energy costs. That is what they want to do to the American people in terms of the energy costs.

I said earlier in the debate a point that I think is very important. They want to talk about priorities as what we do for the big energy companies, what we do for the big oil companies. Well, that is not the priority of this side of the aisle. We want to talk about alternative energy. We want to talk about reducing the dependence on foreign oil, reducing the dependence on gas and on fossil fuels, thereby making our country stronger, both domestically and internationally. If they want to talk about gas and oil, that is the debate. But this debate is about the Coast Guard bill.

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Coast Guard are to be commended for their service to our country and their commitment to the multifaceted mission of the Coast Guard. They serve their country, they risk their lives, just to keep us safe, safe along our coasts, safe along our inland waterways; not thousands of miles away, but right here in the United States. We need to ensure that they have the tools and the support to do the job in the best way that they can. The Coast Guard deserves and needs this bill. The American people deserve and need this bill.

Mr. Speaker, after extensive consideration by three House committees, it is time to bring the Coast Guard authorization bill to the floor.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker made it clear that the Bush administration intends to continue its current strategy in Iraq with no changes, despite absolutely no progress on political reconciliation.

Today when we listen to both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify again, it's important to remember that the principal objective of the President's troop escalation plan was to give the Iraq Government time and the proper environment to create political reconciliation.

I recently returned from Iraq, and it's obvious that the political reconciliation that we hoped for is not taking place. They have had both, but the reconciliation remains elusive. General Petraeus himself has admitted that there has been no sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation in Iraq.

How much longer will General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and this administration demand our troops and our Nation continue to sacrifice for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling and unable to secure its own future? I would like to hear the answer to that question today, because many of us here in Congress do not believe it is our Nation's best interest to keep more troops on the ground in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, at a time of serious economic uncertainty, Democrats have passed a 2009 Democratic budget last month that invests in Federal programs that will boost our economy.

In February, our economy shed 63,000 jobs in fields across-the-board. In order to compete in the new economy, we need to invest in innovation, energy, education and infrastructure, and that is exactly what this Democratic budget does.

Our budget provides crucial funding for the Democratic innovation agenda and the America Competes Act to enhance our competitive edge by increasing funding for important math and science education research. We also increase funding for efficient and renewable energy programs so we can create the green collar jobs of the future. Our budget also invests $7.1 billion more than the President for essential education and job training programs that are so important at a time when Americans are losing their jobs.

Madam Speaker, the Democratic budget strives to build a better economy without raising a penny in additional taxes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1041 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1041 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way on the crucial issues of intelligence-gathering. I commend Chairmen Conyers and Reyes for their diligence in providing much-needed attention in evaluation of FISA, while ensuring that we provide our Nation's intelligence community with the necessary tools and resources to prevent a future terrorist attack on our Nation.

Over the last few weeks, my office phone lines have been burning up with calls from constituents regarding FISA and the need for Congress to take action. Unfortunately, the calls were prompted by a far- reaching misinformation campaign aimed to scare the public into believing that the House majority is in some way prohibiting our Nation's intelligence community from monitoring the terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only are these claims false, they are unconscionable.

I don't believe any Member of this institution, Republican or Democrat, wants to shackle our Nation's intelligence community from preventing another terrorist attack. Frankly, I am getting alarmed by the claims by some of my colleagues. For the last couple of weeks, we have heard only one message from the other side of the aisle: take up the Senate bill because it has the support of the President. I have no interest in being a rubber stamp for this administration, nor of any elected body, even the Senate. That is not why I was sent to Congress. I certainly mean no disrespect to the Senate, but my constituents sent me to Congress to use my judgment and conscience to help govern.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee said it best earlier in the week during our Rules Committee hearing when he said we are not an appendage of the Senate. I couldn't agree with Mr. Conyers more. It is our responsibility to the American people to exercise our legislative duty. Furthermore, with an issue like FISA and intelligence-gathering, I am confident that the American people would expect the House to exercise that duty to the fullest extent possible.

We are a bicameral form of government. The changes we are proposing to the Senate bill today represent a powerful step forward in the legislative process. The administration has made it overwhelmingly clear that they need to use electronic surveillance to track and identify terrorist targets. And despite the misinformation campaign and the rhetoric, the proposal we will vote on today makes it easier for our Nation's intelligence community to wiretap suspected terrorists by explicitly not requiring a court order to wiretap targets believed to be outside the United States. In addition, the proposal provides for surveillance of terrorists and other targets overseas who may be communicating with Americans.

And we are all well aware of the issue of immunity for telecom companies. It seems like that is all we have talked about here for the past several months. As a former prosecutor, I can say from experience and without hesitation, you never provide immunity to anyone unless you are sure whom you are giving the immunity to and why you are giving the immunity out.

One point that has not received enough emphasis over the last few weeks is that the telecom companies have immunity under current law. However, the problem is that anytime a telecommunication company goes to court, this administration steps in and says this is classified material and the question is deemed state secret, and therefore you are not allowed to talk about it. In that way, the telecom companies are not allowed to even defend themselves, but rather have to sit there and answer for any charges civilly made against them.

I, for one, couldn't agree more that if the intelligence community goes to a telecom company with adequate authorization and says, We need communication records for person X because he or she is believed to be a terrorist, the telecom company deserves to be afforded that protection. Unfortunately, we have absolutely no idea what the administration requested and what the telecom companies have provided.

Our proposal provides a commonsense, balanced approach to address the immunity issue. We want to provide the telecom companies with a legal way to present their defense in a secure proceeding and in a secure way in district court without the administration asserting state secret privileges to block those defenses.

And, again, don't be fooled by the misinformation campaign. We are not talking about broadcasting the content of those defenses over the public airwaves, rather just the opposite will be done in camera and in secret. This would involve ex parte proceedings in camera. That is one- on-one telecom company and a Federal district court judge behind closed doors. That way, the determination of whether or not the classified material is, in fact, a state secret is made by a neutral third party and not just this administration.

Finally, our proposal establishes a bipartisan national commission with subpoena power to investigate and report to the American people on the administration's warrantless surveillance activities and to recommend procedures and protections for the future in much the same way that the 9/11 Commission did.

Mr. Speaker, we must bring the misinformation campaign and partisan wrangling to an end. There is no question that there are groups and individuals out there who seek to do us harm. There is no question that my colleagues and I want to give the people who protect us from the danger every tool they need to keep fighting terrorism. The proposal we will vote on today will, in fact, provide our Nation's intelligence community with the resources to prevent future acts of terrorism while protecting the freedoms of the citizens under the Constitution. Everyone in this body wants the same thing, and that is to protect American citizens. This bill does exactly that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me that this debate is becoming more and more political rather than focusing on what we're here to do, and that is to ensure that the people of this country have absolutely the best FISA bill that they can, a bill that not only protects us but ensures that the Constitution is protected as well. That's what this FISA bill does. It takes the best of all the things that we have been trying to achieve over the past several months and incorporates it into a bill, including unshackling the telecom companies so that if they have done what has been asked of them and what is permitted to do under the law, that they are allowed immunity. We certainly don't want to prosecute people who have been trying to help our country and keep our country safe. Nonetheless, this puts into effect the important factors of ensuring that those things are done.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Holt.

I thank the gentleman from California. I just want to assure him that I think I speak for the entire Democratic Caucus when I say that we share his concern for the safety of this country.

However, when he speaks about things that just blatantly aren't true, for some reason, and I don't know if it's an attempt to frighten the American people, it's troubling. This bill, this FISA bill, allows the government to wiretap any foreign national, whether they are overseas or they are here. This is just blatantly untrue. What he says about the fact is that we cannot wiretap, we can't monitor a person that comes to this country who is a foreigner. It's just blatantly untrue. This FISA bill allows that to happen.

It's somewhat disheartening when people mention facts that just aren't true, and I certainly hope it's not for political reasons; but let's stick to the facts, because the facts are clearly that this bill allows that to happen.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, I would again just like to point out that what this bill does is unshackle the telecommunications companies because what we do want to do in this particular case is ensure that they are able to defend themselves if they have cooperated with the government and followed the law, and that is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. We have no further speakers on our side.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we must bring the misinformation campaign and partisan wrangling to an end.

There is no question that there are groups and individuals out there who would seek to do America harm. There is no question that my colleagues and I want to give the people who protect us from the danger every tool they need to fight terrorism.

The proposal we will vote on today will, in fact, provide our Nation's Intelligence Community with the resources to prevent future acts of terrorism, while protecting the freedoms of our citizens under the Constitution.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1041 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike section 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

``Sec. 2. Upon rejection of the motion to concur specified

in section 1, a motion that the House concur in the Senate

amendmemt to H.R. 3773 is hereby adopted.''.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

l09th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, later today the House will have an opportunity to vote on a strong new FISA bill that has been negotiated over the last couple of weeks.

The new legislation will modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. First, it rejects the President's plan to provide blanket immunity to telecom companies who turned over information about their customers. Instead, it gives the Federal court the exclusive opportunity to hear clear classified evidence in order to make a determination whether telecom companies should be held liable for their actions.

Our legislation also requires a special bipartisan commission to investigate the Bush administration's use of wiretaps and other surveillance programs. The commission would be similar to the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that played a critical role in reviewing the events leading up to 9/11 and developing recommendations on how to best protect our Nation.

Madam Speaker, House Democrats are hopeful that Republicans will join us in supporting a FISA bill that protects our Nation and our civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I would just like to say we are hearing about everything except this energy bill. And, Mr. Speaker, I would point out this is a good bill, and so the people on the other side of the aisle want to talk about everything but this rule and this bill.

I rise today in strong support of this rule and this bill, H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, which will not only bring this country into a new alternative energy future, but strengthen our economy, create jobs, and boost small businesses in the very towns and rural communities where we need it most.

During these uncertain economic times, it is absolutely critical that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term development for tomorrow.

The best way to encourage growth and development of new technology is to let businesses invest their own money in ways that expand our economic horizons. Tax credits for alternative energy production have the power to truly jump-start our economy and create good-paying, highly skilled jobs that can't be sent overseas.

In my upstate New York district, our location with natural resources and first-class scientific and technological community makes us perfectly poised to seize the opportunity to create a new green economy, complete with green jobs.

I recently had the opportunity to see firsthand what investments in alternative energy production can do. I attended a groundbreaking at Mascoma's $30 million cellulosic ethanol facility in Rome, New York, and went to the grand opening of the Schuyler Wood Pellet plant in Herkimer County, which will create 18 full-time green jobs on-site, enough wood pellets to heat 33,000 homes, and provide a $10.5 million investment in upstate New York's future. That is the kind of future and the kind of bill we are here to support today.

This is why I am especially glad to support the over- $8 billion in long-term renewable energy tax incentives included in the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, tax incentives that will help companies like Mascoma and Schuyler Wood Pellet continue to grow and spur additional economic activity.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as a recipient of the nastiest attack ad in the last election cycle, I was sad to see this past weekend that it's already started. Yes, the Swift Boat crews were out and at it again, this time trying to convince the American people that because some Members of Congress felt it was better for our security to extend the FISA bill for 21 days rather than let it expire, that somehow they don't care about America's security. Well, that's not only untrue, it's downright insulting.

And the rationale: We should just trust the President's judgment on this matter and rubber-stamp his decisions. This is the same President who assured us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, I want the cowards who crafted these intentionally deceiving messages to know that I was not sent to Congress to be a rubber stamp for this President or anyone else. I will continue to voice my opposition to the President whenever it is necessary to ensure the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are protected.

Madam Chairman, today is not about a FISA debate. Actually, it's not even about whether or not Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten have a right to claim an executive privilege. What it is about is does a person in this country have to follow the laws of the United States, follow the rule of law, follow the Constitution and abide by a legally administered subpoena.

And I guess the best way to talk about that is to draw a comparison. Under the Constitution, a person has an absolute right to claim their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. So, if a person is subpoenaed to testify in a criminal matter, they can't call the judge up and say, ``Judge, I think I might have a fifth amendment problem here. I'm not going to show up.'' The judge will tell them they have to be in court and they have to assert their fifth amendment right after they are asked a question. The same thing applies here. They have to appear before Congress and at least assert that right before they can claim some kind of privilege; otherwise, the entire system falls apart.

Oh, today is a very important day for Congress. We are taking up a very, very important measure, and that is is the Constitution going to be followed and are we going to do our constitutional job.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, the Chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, the economic stimulus package that President Bush will sign into law today is a bipartisan victory for the American people. This broad-based stimulus package will provide tax relief of up to $600 per individual and $1,200 per married couple, plus an additional $300 per child. Recovery rebate checks could be sent out to 130 million Americans as early as May.

The stimulus package includes unprecedented tax relief for working families. The measure provides $32 billion in tax relief for 35 million families who work but make too little to pay income taxes, families who otherwise would not have been included in the recovery package. This is a critically important provision in the stimulus package because economists say that the tax rebates that include low- and moderate- income families are 24 percent more effective as stimulus than rebates that leave these families out.

Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that this stimulus package will help jump-start our economy so more Americans can live the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 976 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 976 provides for further consideration of H.R. 5349, which extends the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

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

I thank my colleague from Washington for his insightful history on the FISA bill. I would submit that I agree with him that the FISA bill is necessary for the security of America. No one questions that. No one on our side of the aisle questions that. The question that we do have is does the Senate bill actually take away some of the liberty that is so necessary to the American people.

All we are asking for is an extension of 21 days. When you think about it in the grand scheme of things, 21 days to make a determination whether or not this bill continues to give the American people the liberty that they have had for over 200 years, that is not a lot to ask for. I would much rather have 21 days, keep the bill in effect but extend it for 21 days, knowing full well that the end product is something that not only ensures our security but guarantees our liberty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion on this issue. Certainly it is the type of issue that elicits real passion from people. But I think we as a body need to be sure that the steps that we take are deliberative and thoughtful. Certainly reacting to an issue such as this in a passionate way may deprive us of taking the necessary steps that we need to ensure that the liberty of our citizens is kept intact.

Again, I would just point out that this bill is asking for an additional 21 days within which Congress can continue to review the documents that we have asked for that we have only recently received to make a determination, again, a deliberative determination based upon facts and reasons and not on passion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be asking us to rely upon assurances given to us by this administration, this same administration that has told us about weapons of mass destruction, the same administration that told us that Iran was building a nuclear bomb. And then she asks why we are skeptical about taking the word of the administration.

As my colleague knows, the House passed the RESTORE Act last November. It was not until last night that the Senate passed a bill reauthorizing and reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill is significantly different than the one we passed in November.

As is the case when the House and the Senate have differing bills, it is appropriate for the two to meet and reconcile their differences. That is exactly what we intend to do in a bipartisan and bicameral way.

However, as my colleagues also know, the President's preferred surveillance law is set to expire on Saturday. The underlying bill will extend that law for 3 weeks and give the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees time to work toward a conference agreement. Additionally, it will also give our Members, Republican and Democrat, time to review reams of highly classified materials which were only provided to us by the White House in recent days, despite requests dating back all the way to May, 8 months ago. These materials are absolutely critical as the House considers the request which has been made by the White House to grant what amounts to a blanket transactional immunity to telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance plan without any explanation of what that immunity is for. While the President has been quick to call on Congress to act, it is he who has continued to ignore countless congressional requests for information about the actions of his administration.

As a former State attorney, I know firsthand that not even a first- year prosecutor would even entertain the idea of granting immunity without knowing what that immunity is for and who that immunity is being granted to.

From his seat, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee noted last night in Rules that he cannot recall a time in his 45 years in the House when an administration has asked Congress to provide immunity to anyone or anything without telling us why. The House is not opposed to granting such immunity, but if we are going to act, then we need to know why.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of passing long-term FISA reform, but it will take time because there are very real differences between the positions of the majority Members of this body and the Senate and the White House. Those who come to the floor today to delay this extension and engage in a manufactured obstructionism, which has become so symbolic of the congressional Republicans, are doing a great disservice to this Nation.

We will overcome this obstructionism, and we will use the next 3 weeks to reconcile our differences and come to the American people with a bill that protects our homeland without sacrificing our civil liberties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague that the only dangerous political game that is being played here is the attempt to cast this as a political game. There is no such attempt being made by anyone in the Democratic Party. The only attempt we are making is to give us time to go through the material that has only recently been given to us with the simple objective of ensuring that we get a bill which keeps our country safe and guarantees the liberty of our people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, you know, obviously raises a good point. As a former FBI agent, he was very concerned, he is very concerned, and he continues to be very concerned with doing the right thing, getting the people who are breaking the laws, hurting our children and who are putting our citizens in jeopardy. But no one in this Chamber has the market cornered on that. That is something that I think universally throughout this Chamber there is a strong desire to fulfill. That is why we are here. We are here to protect and defend our citizens and to protect and defend our Constitution, and that is all we are asking for today: 21 days to ensure that we are able to look over the recommendations, to look over the material that has recently been forwarded to us by this administration to ensure that we are not only protecting and securing this country, but rather that we are also doing it in a way that protects our liberty.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

I thank my friend and colleague from New York for his statements.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the speakers on the other side continue to try to couch this argument in a way and frame it in such a way that makes it appear that people on our side, the Democrats, don't care about the security of this country in the way that they do. And it's obvious that nothing could be further from the truth.

Simply by extending the FISA bill for 21 days to ensure that we have all the information that is out there and all the information that is available and that we have an opportunity to go through it in a thoughtful way doesn't mean that we have less concern for security but, rather, an equal amount of concern for security and also for the liberty of the American people.

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

I have no further speakers.

Yes, sir.

I thank my colleague from Washington for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything since the terrorist attacks of September 11, it is that the balance between security and civil liberties is not only difficult, it's absolutely critical. Providing this 3-week extension will do nothing to block or hinder the efforts of our intelligence community. Quite the contrary, it enhances their ability to do their jobs effectively and ensures the integrity of their efforts because it gives us time to get these reforms right.

I want to remind my colleagues that voting to defeat the previous question is a vote to deny the administration the ability to utilize its existing authority under law to assess threats, gather intelligence and protect the freedom and security of every American.

Twenty-one days isn't a long time. And based on the sensitivity and public interest in this issue, we owe that to the American people and the framers of the Constitution to strike a fair balance that allows us to protect the civil liberties of Americans and to provide the administration the tools and resources to protect our Nation from another terrorist attack. Twenty-one days is a fair request.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years into his Presidency, President Bush is finally urging reform of the earmark process. He is a little late.

Congressional Democrats have already begun reforming the earmark process. We realized reform was necessary after the number of earmarks in appropriations bills skyrocketed under the Republicans. You didn't hear the President complaining then. In fact, he signed every appropriations bill that came to his desk.

Democrats, in stark contrast, have led the way in bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process. We instituted a 1-year moratorium on earmarks in 2007 until a reformed process could be put into place. We also adopted rules that provided for unprecedented transparency in earmarks and then significantly reduced the number of earmarks last year.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats are pleased to hear that the President is interested in reforming the earmark process. The Bush White House requests and receives funding for hundreds of earmarks each year, and we look forward to working with the President to both limit and bring increased transparency to the Presidential and congressional earmarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of John Brennan, a resident of my congressional district in upstate New York, and his extraordinary record of service for World War II veterans.

In the spring of 2004, John formed a committee with the goal of giving World War II veterans from Herkimer County, New York, a historic once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the

World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. The first 3-day, 2-night trip was in September 2004, and two more followed in May and September 2005. In total, approximately 190 Herkimer veterans traveled to D.C. These all-expense paid trips, financed entirely by private donations, are believed to be the first of their kind in the Nation. Because all of their expenses were covered, every veteran who wanted to, and was physically able, made the trip.

In 2007, he was approached about duplicating the Herkimer project for the World War II veterans from Oneida County, New York. In the course of four trips, more than 400 Oneida veterans made the journey to Washington. After the Hamilton County, New York, legislature contacted John, 17 World War II veterans from Hamilton joined the last Oneida trip.

The son of James and Grace Brennan, John was born and raised in Cohoes, New York. He graduated cum laude from Siena College and Albany Law School. Currently, he is employed as the principal law clerk for Michael E. Daley, the State Supreme Court Justice for Herkimer County.

In addition to his work for veterans, John's service to the community includes organizing the Oneida and Herkimer Counties Bar Associations' participation in the Herkimer County Marine Corps League's Holly Days Toy Drive and serving as an assistant coach in the Herkimer Youth Basketball Program. He is also active in many community associations, including serving as the vice-chair of the Valley Health Services board of directors and on the advisory boards of the Herkimer County Salvation Army and the Herkimer County Child Advocacy Center. In addition, he is on the district council of the Boy Scouts of America, Revolutionary Trails Council and the Herkimer County Law Library Board.

John has been the recipient of numerous awards for his commitment to the community. He has received the Oneida County Bar Association Director's Award, the Mohawk Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross's Volunteer Leadership and Faithful Service Awards and the New York State Unified Court System's Merit Performance Award for Community Service and Humanitarian Pursuits. Veterans' organizations, including the Herkimer Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #4915, the Herkimer County Veterans Council and the Ilion Marine Corps League, have also recognized his work with awards.

John's exceptional dedication to veterans is to be commended. Thank you, John, for all you have done.