Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am proud to introduce today the Golden Gate National Parks and Technical Corrections bill. Our National Parks are some of America's greatest treasures, and they have been designated that way to ensure they are preserved for our future generations. In California, we are very proud of our Golden Gate National Recreation Area, with parks spanning across San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin Counties. They are a national treasure deserving of the highest National Park Service designation which this legislation will ensure. The Golden Gate National Parks offer a unique historical perspective on the story of California and the Nation, and unparalleled natural beauty in an unlikely setting close to a major metropolitan area.

One hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt declared Muir Woods the Nation's tenth National Monument to honor the conservationist John Muir and preserve a beautiful natural space. Today, I would like to recognize the establishment of the Golden Gate National Parks, which will contain the Muir Woods National Monument, as the 59th National Park. In honor of renowned environmentalist Edgar Waybum, and my friend and predecessor in Congress, the late Congressman Phillip Burton, who dedicated their careers and lives to preserving these remarkable natural and historical spaces for our and future generations to enjoy, I dedicate this bill.

The Golden Gate National Parks offer residents of and visitors to the San Francisco Bay Area the opportunity to escape from the city and connect with nature and our Nation's history. The Golden Gate National Parks are home to sites utilized by the Coastal Miwok and Ohlone people, the Spanish missionaries and military, Mexican settlers, Gold Rush prospectors, and Civil War military units. There remain many historic sites preserved within the Parks, including the Cliff House Restaurant and the Sutro Baths in San Francisco, as well as decommissioned army bases and fortifications dating back to 1776 and used by our Nation from the Civil War to the Cold War. This bill will strengthen the ability of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park and the Presidio, two of the Golden Gate National Parks, most historic areas, to preserve historic spaces and provide world-class services to visitors from throughout the world.

The Golden Gate National Parks also offer visitors access to an amazingly diverse natural area. Encompassing almost 60 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, the Golden Gate National Parks contain windswept beaches, salt-water marshes, stunning cliffs, and the world's only coastal old-growth redwood forest. The Parks contain expansive forests and costal lands, such as Sweeney Ridge in San Mateo County and Muir Woods in Marin. There is also an abundance of plant and animal life in the Parks with over 1,200 identified plant and animal species, including 33 threatened and endangered species.

In the years since the establishment of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area almost 40 years ago, the park units have collectively been referred to as Golden Gate National Parks. As natural and historic sites have been added to this park system the need has grown to recognize the system of parks for what they are, which is one of our Nation's great natural treasures. This bill recognizes the importance of Golden Gate National Parks to the history and future of our Nation and rewards it with a designation befitting its place among the most spectacular National Parks in our Nation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

I want to join my colleague, Mr. Obey, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in acknowledging the great work of Rob Nabors and all of the staff involved in putting this bill together today.

I want to join him in acknowledging the leadership of the distinguished minority leader, our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, the chairman, Mr. Rangel, for his important work on unemployment insurance, Mr. McDermott, who just spoke, for his important work getting the bill ready. Mr. Lewis, to you and to Mr. Cantor and all involved in all this. Mr. Murtha, to you as well, and Mr. Skelton, to you as well.

We were able to come to this compromise because we were ready. As Mr. McDermott said, earlier in the year we had a bill ready for unemployment insurance. It wasn't going to be signed by the President. We had to put it off until another time. Two weeks ago tomorrow, the unemployment rate in our country shot up by half a point from approximately 5 to 5.5 percent. It sent a very stern message to the Congress of the United States and to the President that we must act.

Following that, on the floor last week, on two occasions, we had a very strong bipartisan vote in favor of unemployment insurance. So when Mr. Rangel went to the table to talk about compromise, it was clear that we had to reflect the will of the American people, and he was ready, he was ready with the legislation. And I'm pleased that Mr. Boehner was ready to accept that.

When we started talking about the final versions of this bill in the past couple of weeks, little did we know that the skies would open and rain would fall and the Midwest of our country would be deluged, and there would be a need to make some adjustment in this bill for disaster assistance to the Midwest and to replenish the FEMA fund to make up for funds spent now. We were ready. And I don't think there was any compromise on that subject; we all agreed that that had to be done.

I am particularly pleased that in the legislation there is a signal sent that this Congress cares about investments in science, it cares about the future, not as much as I would like, but nonetheless, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having that included. And I thank my colleagues for accepting that.

I want to join in all the commendations, again, to those who helped bring this compromise to the floor. I am very pleased that it has the GI Bill, finally. It became clear that this is what we had to do, what we owed our young people to say thank you to them by sending them to college. Mr. Chet Edwards has been a champion on this issue. I will come back to that in a moment.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I cannot fully participate in all of the comradery that is accompanying this legislation that we bring to the floor because of the huge amount of money that is in this bill to fund the war in Iraq without any conditions, without any limitation on time spent there. I'm glad that we have something about no permanent bases, yes, but this is the first time that we will be sending a bill-- well, we sent it to the Senate with conditions and they struck it. We have no choice. This is not about a failure of this House of Representatives; it's about what we cannot get past the next body and onto the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, about a week ago, I spoke at the opening of the groundbreaking for the Institute of Peace. I know that you have been involved in that over the years. And I said that day, on a warm June day like today, it was reminiscent of one 45 years ago when President John F. Kennedy delivered the commencement address at American University.

In the last summer of a life that ended far too soon, President Kennedy spoke of the need to seek peace even in the midst of the Cold War. He said, ``The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war,'' Kennedy told the crowd assembled. ``We shall be prepared if others wish it, we shall be alert to try to stop it, but we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.'' That was President Kennedy's philosophy of his foreign policy.

Contrary to that policy, President Bush started a war based on a false

premise. He sent our troops into a situation that he didn't know what he was getting into. The philosopher Hannah Arendt once said, she observed that nations are driven by the endless flywheel of violence, believing that one last, one final violent gesture will bring peace. But each time they sow the seeds for more violence.

Five years later, we are still engaged in the war in Iraq, 2 years longer than we were in World War II, and that has come at a very great cost. The costs are clear, of course, and we all mourn 4,100 of our troops who have lost their lives in battle, tens of thousands of our troops injured, thousands of them permanently. I met with some of them with my colleagues, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Inslee and Mr. McDermott, at the Seattle VA Hospital last Friday. And before that, Mr. Murtha and I visited our troops in the hospital as well here in Washington, D.C.

Over Memorial Day, I visited our troops in Iraq with some of our colleagues. It was my sixth trip into the theater. And what they asked me is what they always ask: What's going to happen to us when we go home? And for a long time on those visits I didn't have an answer that I could be very, very pleased to tell them. But now, because of the leadership of Mr. Edwards, and others, we're able to say that when you come home, you will be met with the biggest increase in the Veterans Administration health budget in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, and that means in the history of our country, an even bigger investment this year.

And after tonight, in a bipartisan way, we can proudly say--and Mr. Young, who has done more than you? You have just been wonderful, and I salute you as well. We can proudly say to our troops, to our young student veterans, that when they come home, we will say thank you by sending them to college; $7 for every dollar spent on the GI Bill following World War II. We owe these troops nothing else.

Now let's go back to the cost of that war. We talked about those who lost their lives, we talked about those who are permanently injured. And it's such a sad story. The cost to our reputation in the world is enormous. The cost in dollars, the Heritage Foundation said $2.75 trillion. The Heritage Foundation, that's their figure; nearly $3 trillion projected to be the cost of this war.

And so it's hard to understand when we say to the President, we would like to insure 10 million children in America, and he says we can't afford it, so I vetoed the bill. And the Republicans stuck with him on that veto--not all, many voted in a bipartisan way. Forty days in Iraq, 10 million children insured in America for 1 year. We can't afford it? $2.75 trillion, the cost of this war.

But what is worrisome--I know to Mr. Skelton, to Mr. Murtha, and I'm certain to Mr. Young, although he has not given me license to speak for him--is the cost of the military capability of our Nation, lives, limbs, reputation, dollars, opportunity costs at home. But this is about keeping the American people safe. That's what we take an oath of office to do, to provide for the common defense. And our ability to honor our oath of office to uphold the Constitution--in the preamble it says ``to provide for the common defense''--is greatly diminished because this war has diminished the capability of American military forces to protect our interests wherever they are threatened in the world.

So let us think and hope that this is the last time that there will ever be another dollar spent without constraints, without conditions, without direction. Why should we trust the same judgment that got us here in the first place in this war?

So while I'm pleased that we have some spirit of civility here tonight about coming to a conclusion on this bill to bring it to the floor, and I enthusiastically will vote for the domestic piece of this, I'm not urging anyone to do anything, I just want you to know why I would be voting ``no'' on the spending without constraints.

We owe our troops more than sending them into war on a false premise, without the equipment and training they need, without a plan for success, without a strategy to leave. This war has not made the region more stable, it has not made our country safer. It has undermined our capability to protect the American people. It should come to an end safely, honorably, responsibly, and soon.

Mr. OBEY, Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:

Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House

Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the Further Amendment of the House of Representatives Relating to Supplemental Appropriations for

Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009

Following is an explanation of the further amendment of the

House of Representatives (relating to supplemental

appropriations for fiscal years 2008 and 2009) to the Senate

amendment numbered 2 to the House amendment numbered 2 to the

Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, the Supplemental

Appropriations Act, 2008.

In this statement, the provisions of the further House

amendment are generally referred to as ``the amended bill''.

The further House amendment provides that, in lieu of the

matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, language be

inserted providing supplemental appropriations for military

construction, international affairs, disaster assistance, and

other security-related and domestic needs, as well as

language providing for accountability in contracting,

improved veterans education benefits, temporary extended

unemployment compensation, and a moratorium on certain

Medicaid regulations. The amendment also strikes lines 1

through 3 on page 60 of the Senate engrossed amendment of

September 6, 2007.

The text of the amendment is printed in the Rules Committee

report (H. Rpt. 110-720) to accompany House Resolution 1284.

Unless otherwise noted, all appropriations in the amendment

are designated as emergency requirements and necessary to

meet emergency needs pursuant to section 204(a) of S. Con.

Res. 21 and section 301(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 70, the

congressional budget resolutions for fiscal years 2008 and

2009.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his outstanding leadership on this issue. He has been a relentless and persistent advocate for America's working families, for hard workers in our country who, through no fault of their own, and in large measure because of the poor economic policies of the Bush administration, have lost their job.

Mr. Speaker, it is said, and it's been said directly by George Bernard Shaw, that it is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics. My colleagues have made the case for why we need this unemployment insurance, and I want to address once again, as they have, some of the statistics and see if it is the mark of truly intelligent people to respond to that.

Today we have the opportunity to help 3.8 million Americans who are out of work and their families in large part because of the disastrous economic policies of the White House and the Republicans in Congress.

There are 3.8 million Americans for whom 13 weeks of the unemployment insurance system, a system, as the gentleman indicated, that they have paid for, could mean not losing a home or a job or skipping meals or needed health care. Today we have that opportunity to provide that help.

More statistics.

In the Bush economy, gas prices have skyrocketed to $4 a gallon. One in ten Americans are at risk of losing their homes, and even more families are seeing the value of their greatest financial assets, their homes, plummet.

More statistics.

On Friday, we received the alarming news that since the beginning of the year, our Nation has lost more than 325,000 jobs, including 49,000 in the month of May alone.

The Nation's unemployment rate has risen to 5.5 percent, the biggest monthly increase since 1986. In two decades, last Friday on that day, it jumped 0.5 percent to 5\1/2\ percent.

On that same day, by the way, my colleagues, the price per barrel of oil increased by over $11 in that 1 day. In the 1990s, in 1998, the price per barrel was that exact same figure, just over $11. 1998, price per barrel of oil, $11-plus. Last Friday, price per barrel jumped, increased over $11 to over $130 per barrel.

So this is the economic situation in which these families find themselves. They have been hardworking, played by the rules, paid into the system, paid into the system for occasions like this where there's a downturn in the economy, and they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. And the Republicans want to make them look like charity cases.

These are strong people. They are the backbone of America. We have a responsibility to them. And if they are not moved by statistics, as George Bernard Shaw says any intelligent person should be, perhaps you would be moved by their personal stories.

This extension of unemployment benefits will help people like Kathy Henry. She was laid off her job at an advertising company last August. In February, her unemployment benefits ran

out. As she says, ``I must have had 100 interviews, and no one wants to hire me.'' Many times people think the people that are being interviewed for these jobs are overqualified. ``An extension of unemployment benefits would give me more time to look for a job,'' Kathy says.

And Liz Waller of Missouri, she just has 3 weeks of unemployment benefits left. She said, ``Absolutely, an extension would make a big difference for me. I'm dying to get back to work.'' I'm dying to get back to work, ``but I've done interview after interview and there are just way too many job candidates out there. I just keep getting told I'm overqualified.''

There is a concern on the part of some employers that as people continue to look for work and look for jobs at lower pay, that if they hire them, then they will leave when they can find a job at higher pay with an upturn in the economy.

This isn't about people sitting on their butts back home saying, goody, I'm getting an unemployment check; now I can really look my family in the eye and say I'm providing. These people want to provide for their families. To imply anything else is an insult to these millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and, in large measure, because of the Bush administration's failed economic policies.

Let's think about our veterans. This legislation is especially important to our returning military veterans. A recent government report prepared for the Veterans Affairs Department found that young veterans earn less and have a harder time finding work than do civilians in the same age group. The percentage of veterans not in the labor force--because they couldn't find jobs, stopped looking for work because they couldn't find jobs, or went back to school--jumped to 23 percent in 2005 from 10 percent in the year 2000.

Our veterans come home; they can't find work. Some of them need this unemployment insurance, and the Republicans are saying, ``Just say no.''

Extending unemployment benefits not only helps those who are looking for work, it stimulates the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, $1 spent generates $1.64 in new economic demand. Stimulates the economy.

All Americans who work pay unemployment insurance, pay into a trust fund for a rainy day. The rainy day is here. Today, across the country and for millions of Americans, that rainy day is here. Congress should ensure that those who paid into the system for the benefits now can receive them, and we can do this by passing this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, the issue and the debate is not a partisan one. All Americans are feeling serious and deep economic pain. The people who will benefit from this are Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisans, Independents, people who aren't even interested in the political system. Yet, President Bush has issued a veto threat against this legislation, despite the fact that it will help--let's get back to our statistics--3.8 million Americans and, in fact, the entire economy.

And so I get back to our friend George Bernard Shaw. ``It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.''

I thank Chairman McDermott for your important work on this subcommittee, on this legislation. I also want to commend the chairman of the full committee for being a truly intelligent man, moved by statistics, Chairman Rangel for his relentless work on this important legislation. To Mr. Levin as well and to all of the members of the committee, thank you for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

The American people are waiting to see if Congress will act to help them on a matter that is relevant to their economic survival at a difficult time in their lives for money that they paid into the system. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, the Chair of the Budget Committee, for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this excellent document to the floor, a budget which will help us protect our country, grow our economy, give middle income tax cuts, and do so in a fiscally sound way.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our budget is a statement of our national values. At least it should be. Now for the first time in our New Direction Congress, last year and this year, for 2 years straight, we have put forth a budget resolution, the first time a budget resolution has been put forth in an election year by the Congress since the Republicans took over. Now the Democrats are in charge and we have had 2 years of responsible budgeting.

I listened with interest to our colleagues and their views on this budget. They certainly are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I want to just quote from some of the responsible independent budget organizations, some of them conservative-leaning organizations, when it comes to their false claim about this budget increasing taxes.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says, ``The conference agreement does not raise taxes.''

The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution says very clearly, ``The budget would not raise taxes.'' Indeed, your budget, Mr. Spratt, indicates that one of your priorities is making up-front cuts in taxes for alternative minimum tax relief that ultimately would be paid for without increasing the budget deficit.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says, ``Some claim that the budget plan of the conferees would constitute `the largest tax increase in history.' This claim is inaccurate. This year's budget plan does not include a tax increase. It actually calls for a $340 billion reduction in revenues.''

The problem that our friends on the Republican side have is that these tax cuts are for the middle class, not just for their friends in the upper 1 percent bracket. These tax cuts address the marriage penalty, address the 10 percent tax bracket, address the child tax credit. The middle class and those who aspire to it benefit from this budget.

This is a fiscally sound budget, and for that we are all in Mr. Spratt's debt. This budget has to be balanced in terms of its spending and its priorities, and, indeed, it is a statement of our values.

I would like to see anyone in this room who supports veterans say they cannot support the budget provisions in this legislation. In this bill, for our veterans it provides an additional $3.7 billion for veterans health care and services, which is why this budget has the strong support of major veterans groups.

When it comes to energy, an issue of major concern to households across America, this budget provides $7.7 billion for renewable energy, energy efficiency and other energy initiatives, which is $2.7 billion more than just last year.

In innovation, let's stop having these stale debates about trade or no trade. Let's educate, innovate, compete and prevail in the global marketplace. This budget provides nearly $2 billion to fully accommodate the commitments made in the America COMPETES Act, which was voted on by an overwhelming number of Republicans to give us a huge vote in the Congress and signed by the President. This is to spur innovation and invest in basic scientific innovation.

Again, by setting the right priorities and making tough choices, our budget also cuts taxes again for the middle class and those aspiring to it and protects 20 million households from the alternative minimum tax.

In any year, creating a budget is a difficult challenge. In an election year, it is even more challenging, because of all of the competing priorities that

want to be in the budget. But this year we have a budget that is in balance in terms of its values and is in balance in terms of the track that it puts us on.

Thank you, Mr. Spratt, for putting us on track, with no deficit, for the budget to be in balance by 2012. It is fully compliant with pay-as- you-go rules. It is a budget, again, of the statement of our values, fiscally responsible, pay-as-you-go. It has tremendous merit, and it should have the support of every person in this body.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the budget.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, May 23, San Francisco lost one of its extraordinary citizens with the passing of George Frederick ``Fritz'' Jewett, Jr. I sadly enter into the Record excerpts from his obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Mr. Jewett a Prominent San Francisco businessman, philanthropist and sailing buff whose support of the sport led to his induction into the America's Cup Hall of Fame in 2005, died in San Francisco on Friday of a cerebral hemorrhage. He was 81.

Mr. Jewett had a long career in the forest products industry as a director of the Potlatch Corp. He retired as vice chairman of the board in 1999. He was also renowned in sailing circles for chairing five America's Cup Syndicated for three yacht clubs from 1973 through 2000.

Mr. Jewett was known for his civic activism, generosity and gentle demeanor. Fritz's love of competition and his personal sportsmanship made him a Hall of Famer. His love of friends and kindness to them made him a world class gentleman.

Mr. Jewett is survived by his wife of 54 years, Lucy; his son, George Jewett, III of Hillsborough; his daughter Betsy Jewett of Spokane; his sister, Margaret Greer of Chevy Chase, MD; and four grandchildren.

He had known his wife-to-be Lucille McIntyre since childhood, and reconnected while he was working in a Tacoma sawmill. They were engaged 6 weeks later, and would have celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary in July of this year.

In all of life's endeavors Fritz and Lucy were a team. Their love for each other and their family was a model to us all. They were enormously generous in their philanthropy and hospitality. They touched the lives of so many with their quiet and significant support of the arts, education, science, medicine, conservation and sports. Their interests ranged from their patronage, of the San Francisco Ballet to cheering for the San Francisco 49ers. The grace of the ballet and the competitiveness of sports came together in the beauty of sailing which they enjoyed personally and at the America's Cup level.

I hope that it is a comfort to Lucy and the Jewett Family that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them. Fritz brought the same dignity, spirit and humor to dealing with his physical challenges in his last year as he did throughout his life. My husband Paul and I send our deepest sympathy to Lucy, George, III, and Betsy at this sad time.

Today, a statue of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk will be unveiled at City Hall in San Francisco. It is fitting that on the occasion of his 78th birthday, San Franciscans will gather to pay tribute to Harvey Milk's life and work at City Hall, where he served San Francisco and so tragically lost his life 30 years ago.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to any significant political office in our history. This memorial will be the first such tribute to an LGBT leader to be placed in a seat of government in the United States.

Harvey Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. A year later, in one of the darkest weeks of San Francisco's history, Supervisor Milk and our beloved Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Supervisor Dan White.

Harvey Milk was a San Francisco hero, a champion of human rights and symbol to the world for LGBT civil rights. His political career was dedicated to shattering the silence of gay America. He firmly believed that the only way for gays to break down homophobia was to increase their visibility and irrevocably enter the consciousness of our Nation.

A popular neighborhood merchant and activist, Harvey Milk became a great progressive leader who transformed San Francisco political life and social culture for all time. He pioneered an open, participatory government accessible to all, especially those who had never before been engaged. For the first time, neighborhood and ethnic community activists and openly gay men and lesbians were appointed to positions of power and authority. He was a passionate advocate for seniors, and his populist agenda encompassed the needs of all of San Francisco's minorities.

Last week's California Supreme Court decision to strike the ban on gay marriage is a testament to Harvey Milk's enduring legacy. It is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride, and one we would not have reached without the courage and dedication of Harvey Milk and many LGBT leaders after him.

Harvey Milk did not live to see the immeasurable and global ramifications of his life. He continues to inspire us to strive for a society that honors his values of unlimited and equal opportunities for all our citizens. His legacy helps bring our country closer to the ideal of equality that is both our heritage and our hope.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise in support of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. I am enthusiastic about it because it will cut taxes for millions of middle-income families and grow the U.S. economy, it will invest in renewable energy technologies to create high-paying green jobs, it will make us more energy independent, and it will remove incentives in the Tax Code that encourage shipping jobs and investments overseas.

I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Charlie Rangel. He has brought a bill to the floor that makes key investments in our families and our future. And I thank the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. McDermott, for his leadership and for yielding me time.

This is how the bill will cut taxes. Here are seven reasons why everybody in this Congress should vote for this bill. Any one of them should be enough.

First, it provides 30 million homeowners with property tax relief.

Secondly, it helps 13 million children by expanding the child tax credit.

Third, it benefits 11 million families through the State and local sales tax deduction.

Fourth, it helps 4.5 million families better afford college with tuition deductions.

Next, it saves 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses. Imagine now when our teachers go into classrooms that are not fully equipped. They have to pay for that equipment themselves. This at least says if you do that, you will get a tax deduction.

It provides more than 22,000 military families with tax relief under the earned income tax credit.

And it ensures U.S. competitiveness by expanding the research and development tax credit.

That is how it cuts taxes. There are seven reasons right there, any one of which I think is sufficient to vote for this bill.

When it comes to gas prices, Mr. Speaker, as we debate this legislation American families are paying record prices at the pump. Yesterday the cost of a barrel of oil passed $129 for the first time in history. Today I believe it went past $130. This legislation invests in the future and the ingenuity of the American people to create and deploy cutting-edge renewable technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and this is how it does that.

It strengthens and extends the production tax credit which will spur the deployment of wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal and landfill gas.

Next, it transitions biofuel beyond corn by creating a new tax credit to promote the production of cellulosic biofuels.

Next, it expands and extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax credit and offers tax incentives for residential, solar, wind and geothermal technologies. It provides tax incentives for coal electricity plants that capture and

sequester carbon dioxide. It includes incentives to encourage energy efficient products, such as plug-in hybrid cars and incentives for energy conservation, both in commercial buildings and residential structures. And it creates a new category of tax credit bonds to fund local initiatives to promote the deployment of green technologies.

This is a comprehensive approach, the missing part of the energy bill that we passed last year because it did not have the tax credits. Now we do. This industry can take off. We can have private sector initiatives to grow our economy, create good-paying jobs here at home, green jobs, and have the green economic revolution that is so important to our future.

And this is all being done in a fiscally sound way. No new deficit spending. It is paid for. This forward-looking legislation invests in renewable energy, creates hundreds of thousands of good-paying green jobs, spurs American innovation, and cuts taxes, cuts taxes, for millions of Americans. And it does so, as I mentioned, in a fiscally responsible way.

To invest in our future, this bill closes loopholes allowing corporations and executives to avoid paying certain taxes by shipping jobs and investments overseas. The New Direction Congress thinks we should focus tax benefits on creating jobs and encouraging investments here at home.

Despite the strong case for rescinding taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies making record profits, opposition by the Senate Republicans to these offsets makes their inclusion untenable for the bill being debated today. But we will come back to that.

Today's bill represents a concerted effort to enact a bill into law promptly, and thus relies on revenue offsets that enjoy strong bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Rangel and members of the Ways and Means Committee and Members of our House on both sides of the aisle who care about an energy future for America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It is a national security issue, it is an economic issue, it is an environmental and health issue, it is an energy issue, it is a moral issue for us to preserve God's beautiful creation, this planet, and to pass it on to the next generation in a responsible way.

I urge my colleagues to support the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to commend you, Chairman Obey, and Mr. Murtha, for your tireless work on behalf of our men and women in uniform, and for bringing this critical legislation to the floor today. I am particularly interested in part two and three of the resolution.

We're all grateful for the fact that this will be the last time we will vote on an Iraq supplemental in the House of Representatives. Again, I thank the chairman and the chairman for their important work in this regard.

When the House completes its work today, we will have achieved three goals. First, we will have set a new direction in Iraq that will end this sad chapter in American history and bring our brave men and women home. That is necessary because President Bush, in his request to the Congress, insists on his failed course of action in Iraq, failed from day one; day one, when they went in and thought the war would end in one day.

They're asking us to trust the same impaired judgment that took us into this war on a false premise, without the proper training and equipment for our troops, without a strategy for success or an exit strategy from Iraq.

Isn't it sad that here we are, over 5 years later, over 4,000 of our precious treasure have died, tens of thousands of our men and women in uniform have been wounded, many of them permanently. Our reputation in the world has been greatly diminished, harming our ability to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and eradicate disease and alleviate poverty, and all of the other leadership roles we have played in the past. It has come at a tremendous cost in dollars to American taxpayers, trillions of dollars, which have taken us deeply into debt, which has taken us into recession. More on that later. But think of the opportunity cost of that money, what we could have done to invest in education and health care. We will pay any price any time to protect the American people, but not to follow the whim of the impaired judgment of this Bush administration.

Only when we finally end this war can we rebuild our military. And that is another cost of this war, diminishing the capacity of our military to meet challenges and threats to our security wherever they may occur. When we do that, we will be able to refocus our attention on the real war on terror.

So this action that we are proposing today, a new direction in Iraq that will end the war, will rebuild our military, refocus on the real war on terror, and restore our reputation in the world. That is why this legislation directs that a redeployment begin within 30 days of this bill's enactment, and with the goal of being completed by December 2009, be completed by then. The new President will have the flexibility to bring our troops home safely, honorably, responsibly, and soon.

Essential to restoring our reputation in the world is to regain our moral authority, which has been lost in this war. That is why under the conditions of this legislation torture is banned. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, for your leadership on this subject. This condition has passed this House overwhelmingly in the defense appropriation bill.

It will also ban permanent bases in Iraq. This condition has passed this House overwhelmingly on any number of occasions, over 300 votes. Insist that the Iraqis pay their fair share for reconstruction. This is a relatively new condition, but a necessary one predicated on the fact that the Iraqis are amassing a budget surplus while we're going deeply in debt to pay for their reconstruction. We're saying if we put up a dollar, you put up a dollar, dollar for dollar to participate in their reconstruction. They have to be at least as interested in rebuilding Iraq as we are, especially when we are doing it to the neglect of our own reconstruction needs in the United States.

This legislation will also ensure that our military pays only its fair share for fuel. Do you know that in Iraq, we pay almost 2\1/2\ times as much for gasoline, our military does, than the Iraqi people do? The Iraqi Government subsidizes the Iraqi people and makes our military pay more than double. And that's a new condition.

The conditions here calling for the cleaning up of waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and reviewing of contracting passed by suspension. Over two-thirds of the House voted for this legislation that is contained in this condition. And require that any agreements with Iraq that commit U.S. forces for the protection of the Iraqi Government from an external force or from a civil war internally must be approved by the Congress of the United States.

Under the guise of a Status of Forces Agreement, the administration is committing the United States to a treaty without congressional approval. I remind the President of article I. Read the Constitution, Mr. President.

I believe that these provisions should receive bipartisan support. They have every time they have come to the floor. The only two new ones are about the cost of fuel and the dollar for dollar.

What we will also accomplish in this bill is to honor our responsibility to our men and women in uniform. I have been to the theater, to the war area, five or six times in the course of this military action, sometimes with Mr. Murtha, with Mr. Skelton, with Mr. Lantos, with our committee Chairs of jurisdiction.

And when we meet the young people there, they always say the same thing: ``What is going to happen to me when I go home?'' ``What is going to happen to me when I go home?''

Some of the soldiers were telling me about their lives at home, and one of them was very quiet, and I said to him, ``What did you do before you came to Iraq?''

He said, ``I was in high school, ma'am.'' He was in high school. He was a teenager with a gun over his shoulder. If that's necessary for our country's security, it has to happen. But this young man, a teenager, fighting that fight without any thought about what was going to happen to him when he came home.

Well, what we would like to say in the final amendment here is that when you come home, young man, we will thank you for your service to our country by sending you to college. That's what the student veterans have asked us for. That is what we have done for veterans in the past. That is what we owe these young people now. And in doing so, we will be doing a great thing not only for them but for our country because their education will be part of the economic recovery of our country. In the security of our country, they have led the way. In the economic recovery of our country, they will be in the lead.

Third in this bill, we will begin to address America's domestic priorities. We will address the deep economic pain facing many families. As I mentioned, this war, President Bush's war, which is enabled by the complicity of the Republicans in Congress, has taken us deeply into debt, which has taken us deeply into recession, and now has taken our economy to a place where we have record numbers of people unemployed. Today 7.6 million people are unemployed. Of these, 1.4 million Americans, jobless Americans, have been looking for work for over 6 months. And our economy has lost 260,000 jobs this year so far alone. These people need our help as they continue to seek work in this difficult economy.

Thank you, Mr. Obey, for including the unemployment insurance for America's workers in this legislation.

The contrast, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is clear. President Bush and the Republicans in Congress insist on a war without end in Iraq. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans across the country, but, sadly, too few Republicans in this House, are insisting on a New Direction. A New Direction that strengthens America's military by ending the war in Iraq. A New Direction that strengthens America's economy by investing in our veterans and our workers here at home.

We have said over and over again that one way to support our troops is to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. We can begin building that future worthy of their sacrifice by saying ``thank you'' to them and, when they come home, to send them to college.

I urge my colleagues to support the second and the third amendments that are being presented today. And in closing, I want to, as always, salute our men and women in uniform for their service, their sacrifice, their courage,

their patriotism, and with our commitment, again, to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want

to congratulate the distinguished chairman of our Agriculture Committee for his important work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. I also want to commend Mr. Goodlatte for his leadership as well, so we can come to the floor with bipartisan legislation that will help lower food prices, invest in energy independence, support conservation, and recognize the importance of specialty crops.

I want to commend Mr. Kind also for his leadership. It is very important for us to reform the farm subsidy programs in our country. I think where we have a disagreement is I think this bill is a good first step in that direction. I don't think we will ever see another bill that will look this way. And when we come to the place where our situation is addressed again in a bipartisan way on the next farm bill, I think your work will be repaid. But I hope, Mr. Kind, that you take some satisfaction in the fact that from your leadership and advocacy, this farm bill is moving in the right direction. I too am not satisfied that it does enough in terms of farm subsidies, but I want to talk about what it does do.

And what it does do is much better because of the leadership of Mr. Goodlatte, our distinguished chairman Mr. Peterson, the work of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who just did a phenomenal job. Chairman Rangel did a phenomenal job on his aspect of the bill. And Mr. Pomeroy, who serves on both the Ways and Means Committee and the Agriculture Committee, was a wonderful bridge in terms of these initiatives. I also commend Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for her leadership, and all of our colleagues who are here today, including Mr. Holden who is number two on the Ag Committee. All across America, we are proud of the work that has been done.

In California, we are proud of the work of Dennis Cardoza, a member of the Ag Committee, representing some new ideas about fresh fruits and vegetables and how they should be part of this initiative. We on the coast, to my colleague Mr. Scott, we wanted to see some initiatives about fresh fruits and vegetables and specialty crops, and they are contained in here. And I commend Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her incredible work on the nutrition piece of this.

As part of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Baca was a leader in terms of the nutrition piece, and Congresswoman DeLauro as Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture was an important voice and strong leader and advocate for increasing the nutrition initiatives in this legislation. If there was one reason for Members to vote for this bill, it would be to support the nutrition piece of it, but there are other reasons as well.

I talked about how it could lower grocery prices. Time magazine recently had this on its Web site, four ways the farm bill could lower grocery bills. First with the disaster relief, a $3.8 billion program for farmers hit by drought and flooding could speed up compensation, allowing them to bring crops to market faster.

Cuts in ethanol subsidies. Demand for corn-based ethanol has increased corn prices. This bill cuts the producers' tax credit and creates a subsidy for more efficient cellulosic ethanol made from stalks, grass, and wood rather than from corn.

Food stamps. Payments to those on assistance will be more responsive to inflation. The minimum monthly benefit will increase from $10, where it has been since 1977, and may I say, probably since they put this out.

The final bill has strong support for the food pantries, food banks throughout America. Now if you go to a food bank, you will see a sign that says you can only come one time a month to pick up food because the shelves are bare in those food pantries. This bill will go a long way to filling those shelves. So for emergency food assistance, this program would supply food banks and pantries and could add up to $100 million more in funding per year as more Americans affected by the sluggish economy visit its distribution centers.

Some people in our country are concerned as our economy is in a downturn, they are concerned about losing their jobs. Many people are concerned about losing their homes; but almost everyone is concerned about losing his or her living standard. The purchasing power of middle-income families has been reduced while costs have gone up for necessities like gasoline and groceries and health care and education. The issue of gasoline and groceries are addressed somewhat, one more than the other, in this legislation.

In terms of energy, high energy costs are a contributing factor to our high food prices, which is why the Food and Energy Security Act, which this is, will help reduce gas prices and ensure that America's family farmers fuel America's energy independence. Think of this. We are talking about energy independence, and with this legislation we take a step for America's farmers to fuel America's energy independence, following up on the work we did last year in the energy bill.

It makes a $1 billion investment in energy independence. In addition to that, it takes a critical step in transitioning from biofuels, from corn as I mentioned, and creates a new tax credit that will provide a $400 million investment in cellulosic biofuels. These efforts will ensure that we send our energy dollars to the Midwest instead of to the Middle East.

In terms of conservation, the bill recognizes that those who work the land, America's farmers and ranchers, are great stewards of the land. The farm bill improves access to and funding for initiatives that take environmentally sensitive lands out of production. It encourages environmentally friendly practices on working lands, and it invests $5.4 billion to preserve farm and ranchland, improve our air quality, our water quality, and enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitats on working lands.

Others have mentioned the issue of specialty crops. For the first time, the farm bill makes an historic investment in specialty crops, especially important to my State of California, and as I have said, those of us living on the coast as well as in the rest of America. It provides $1.3 billion in mandatory spending. This investment was made possible by the leadership of Congressman Dennis Cardoza of California who has worked to ensure that the producers who account for more than half of all crop value in the United States are now represented in our farm policy. Producers who provide one-half of all crop value in the United States are now represented in our farm bill.

Specifically this bill invested $365 million in specialty crop block grants, $230 million to create a new dedicated research program for specialty crops, $377 million to create a new initiative for early detection prevention and eradication of emerging pest and disease. I know that Mr. Thompson of California has a special interest in this aspect of the legislation.

The bill takes a critical step toward reforming farm programs, not enough I agree, Mr. Kind, by eliminating payments to the ultra-rich and closing loopholes that for decades have allowed some to evade farm- payment limits. This is the most significant reform in farm policy in more than 30 years. This Food and Energy Security Act will ensure that future farm bills will never again look like this.

Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson and many others who have made this historic investment in energy independence and nutrition assistance, this bill's effects will also be felt far from farm country. As George Washington our first President whom we visit every day when we come to the Chamber said, ``I know of no pursuit in which more real and important services can be rendered to any country than by improving its agriculture.'' Well, we were an agrarian society then, but there is still a great deal of truth in that statement today.

With this legislation we will help families facing high food prices; fuel our Nation's energy needs with American-made, renewable energy; and be better stewards of the land and protect our environment. In addition to all of that, we will have fresh snacks, fresh fruit and vegetable snacks for our children in the schools.

I urge my colleagues to support this new direction in American farm policy. I urge an ``aye'' vote. Again, I salute Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte for their leadership. It is wonderful for us to have this bipartisanship on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

I would like to thank Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her outstanding leadership on this issue. For 13 years, she has worked to pass this bill protect Americans from genetic discrimination. She's both the powerful chair of the Rules Committee, and a microbiologist, so she knows what she is talking about.

The sequencing of the human genetic code is one of the great scientific accomplishments in the history of the world. It has the potential to treat and prevent disease. It is evidence of science's almost-biblical power to heal.

But with this scientific breakthrough comes a responsibility to protect Americans from the misuse of their genetic information. Today, the Congress will begin to fulfill that responsibility by passing this legislation.

This legislation prevents health insurers from adverse coverage or pricing decisions based on a person's genetic predisposition toward a disease. It ensures an employer cannot make adverse employment decisions based on what is in a person's genetic code. It also makes it illegal for an insurer or employer to request or demand a gene test.

Because of this legislation, Americans will be free to undergo genetic testing for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's, without fearing for their job or health insurance. There is life-saving information in those tests. And for scientists, there is information that allows for huge breakthroughs.

This legislation is supported by the vast majority of the American people, 93 percent of whom do not want employers to have access to their genetic information.

This is such good policy that this legislation is supported by more than 500 organizations, including a broad coalition of civil rights and religious organizations. Health advocacy groups ranging from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the March of Dimes to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation have endorsed it.

In the Congress, it has broad bipartisan support. It also has the support of the President.

Let us not wait another day to pass this legislation so it can move to the President's desk for his signature and become law.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I am pleased to join Mr. Boehner and other cosponsors of this legislation, and thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor, and for leading us in our strong friendship with the State of Israel.

I thank Mr. Berman for following so ably in the footsteps of Mr. Lantos as he follows the tradition of Chairman Lantos whose loss we feel every day.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, families around the world, including my own grandchildren, gathered around the Seder table to retell the Biblical story of freedom and hope that is Passover.

The closing words of the Passover haggadah evoke the age-old yearning of the Jewish people to return to Zion. Today, in Congress, we mark the fulfillment of those aspirations in observing the founding of the modern State of Israel. By recognizing the 60th anniversary of Israel, we reaffirm the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.

Again I thank Chairman Berman and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in giving us this opportunity today. I am pleased to join Republican Leader Boehner as lead cosponsors of this legislation, as I am pleased to join him in leading a delegation to Israel in a few weeks to be part of the 60th anniversary observance.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of the State of Israel, as Mr. Berman said so eloquently, stands out as one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century and as a beacon of hope to the world. President Truman's role in recognizing the new state just 11 minutes after its proclamation is a source of pride for all Americans. It is also a symbol of the strength of the friendship between our two countries.

I note that this congressional recognition is a little earlier than a month before Israel's independence day, but this allows us to get ready and to have a few weeks of festivities to bring in the May celebration.

In this body we sometimes have political differences, but today and every day we speak with one voice united with Israel. As we support Israel, we recognize that the national security of Israel is in our national interest.

A week ago, Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, came to my office. Gilad was captured from his army base in Israel near the Gaza border on June 25, 2006. For almost 2 years, Gilad has been held in captivity. Our thoughts are with him and his family, as well as with all of the other missing Israeli soldiers, such as Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. We will continue to work for their release from captivity.

Mr. Speaker, every leader from the region who comes into my office, or just other people that I find worthy of knowing about this, I show the dog tags of Eldad, Ehud and Gilad as a constant reminder in the Speaker's Office of our commitment to them and to their freedom.

In America's partnership with Israel, we have both given support and we have drawn strength. We share a common history, nations founded to be beacons of democracy, forged by pioneers, and fulfilled by immigrants in search of a better tomorrow. We also share a common cause, a safe and secure Israel, living in peace with her neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to speak with one voice and support this resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. In doing so, we not only commend Israel, we also bring luster to this House by associating ourselves with that great State of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Florida for her generosity in allowing me, the Speaker, to speak out of turn.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his kind words of recognition to the Pelosi amendment. And I thank him for his tremendous leadership on debt forgiveness, not only now, but for a number of years.

I remember watching the master at work to see Mr. Frank work with the then Clinton administration in the year 2000 when we were trying to get the millennium debt forgiveness. He, along with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, have really made a tremendous difference in all this. And they have talked about some of the differences made in the countries, Congresswoman Waters did earlier.

God bless us in this House to be able to serve with Congressman Bachus. He has just been such a wonderful leader in the House; his value-based policies, sensitive to the needs of people in the world, and how that relates to the security of our country, and how this is important from the standpoint of security and compassion, but it makes good, practical economic sense as well. You're a wonderful leader in this regard, and it is an honor to call you colleague, Spencer Bachus, distinguished ranking member of the committee.

This has been a bipartisan initiative from the start. I appreciate the letter that was sent out by Chairman Waters and Spencer Bachus, Barney Frank, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Judy Biggert, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, as well as Carolyn Maloney from that committee, advocating for this Jubilee Act to be passed today and spelling out exactly what it does as Mr. Bachus did so very clearly just a moment ago. And so with all the recognition to those on the committee and those who have worked on this issue, thank you for bringing us to this moment on this day.

And I was very pleased and accept Congresswoman Waters' acknowledgment of our insisting that it be brought up today because today is the day we welcomed the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, to Washington, D.C. Many of us have just returned from the White House, where we were very proud of the welcoming ceremony presided over by President Bush and Mrs. Bush to welcome Pope Benedict and to be stirred by both of their words, the words of our President and also of the Holy Father.

In his remarks, the Holy Father talked about truth and justice and freedom. He talked about respecting the dignity and worth of every person, regarding each other as brothers and sisters, all God's children. He made a beautiful and inspiring speech. And really his speech was reflected in the remarks that Spencer Bachus made here in that same regard of what our responsibilities are to our brothers and sisters.

Today is the Holy Father's birthday. And as the President said, he is spending his birthday with friends. And in friendship, we bring this Jubilee Act to the floor today.

This is not the first resolution to welcome His Holiness to America. Last week, we all voted in strong support in a bipartisan way for Congressman McCotter's resolution of welcome to the Holy Father. Yesterday, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren had legislation on the floor relating to religious workers' visas and their ability to work in the United States, which is an issue of importance to His Holiness. And now today, this very important resolution.

The former Holy Father, Pope Paul II, said, ``If you want peace, work for justice.'' There has always been a connection here. With this debt forgiveness, it enables countries to do many more things to promote justice in their countries, whether it's the eradication of disease, the alleviation of poverty, eliminating some of the factors that contribute to the fury of despair that leads to violence that makes the world less safe.

Again, this was a high priority, this debt forgiveness, for John Paul II when he was Pope, and he led the Cardinals in America Conference of Bishops to advocate for this. But it has not just been a Catholic initiative, it has been an interfaith initiative in the country, in the world, and certainly in this Congress.

So it's very exciting, on this Holy Father's birthday, as we welcome him to America, we do so in a way, as Mr. Bachus said, that just gives the authority to negotiate for these improvements in the forgiveness of debt so that we can, again, do what is right for respecting the spark of divinity that exists in every person in the world, that we can try to bring some justice to it, we, who have so much, for those who are also God's children need our help, and give them hope.

People say to me, where is hope? I say, hope; it's right where it's always been. Hope sits right there comfortably between faith and charity. We are people of faith who believe in the goodness of people. And we have faith that the charity that that will evoke or bring forth will help honor the hope that people have in the world.

So this is a great occasion, again, to welcome His Holiness, to stand up for all the people in the world, and to do what he called upon us to do this morning, he called upon us, he said, ``we must have the courage.''

Today, I hope that we have a unanimous bipartisan show of courage to do what is right. Again, I thank Mr. Frank, Mr. Bachus and Congresswoman Waters for their relentlessness on this issue and the opportunity that they give us to give hope today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her for her very distinguished leadership of the Rules Committee and for bringing this very important rule to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is one I wish could have been avoided, and I think it is important to put it in context because I have heard our colleagues talk about the merits of the bill or talk about any precedent on rules, and I have heard them talk about different things. But I think it is important to know what brought us here today.

On Monday, I received a call from the President of the United States, always an honor to receive a call from the President. This is after months of our going back and forth with members of the cabinet and the rest about when and if they would send up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The President informed me that he would be sending the bill over the next day.

I recommended against it. I said, Mr. President, you shouldn't send it for

two reasons. If you send it and we take it up, it will lose. Now you think it is very important to pass a Colombia free trade agreement, and in the Congress we have people who share your view. And we have others who share your view that we should pass it as soon as we address the concerns of America's working people, and others who will never be for it. But let's talk about what the possibilities are for passing it, and those possibilities are greatly diminished if you send that bill to the Congress under these circumstances.

Apart from the fact that it would be a breach of protocol, and let's just talk about that. A successful trade agenda depends on joint partnership between the Congress and the administration, as was the case recently in the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Had the administration followed the established protocol of congressional consultation relating to the submission of any free trade agreement, we would not have to take this action today.

By his actions on Tuesday, the President abandoned the traditions of consultation that have governed past agreement. In fact, the action the House takes today is more in keeping with the spirit of the rules than the White House's move to force a vote.

But, as I said, just from a practical standpoint, Mr. President, you simply don't have the votes. And if we are to try to arrive at a place where the concerns of the American people are addressed, we need more time to do that.

I also said what I have said many times to the President. If we are going to be successful in passing a trade agreement, we have to first tell the Americans people that we have a positive economic agenda that addresses their aspirations, addresses their concerns about their economic security.

This bill's been around for a while, and matters have only gotten worse in our economy. The former Chair of the Fed has said we're in the throes of a recession. The current Chair of the Federal Reserve last week, the end of last week, testified to Congress that there's a possible recession.

Many people, I mean, the joblessness numbers of last week, again pointed to a steeper downturn in our economy.

No. You control your time. With all due respect to the gentleman, I'll use mine.

The fact is, as I said to the President, many people in America now are concerned about their jobs. They're concerned about losing their homes. Most people won't, but most people are concerned about losing their living standard.

When the cost of groceries and gasoline and the cost of health care and education and other staples continues to go up, and the purchasing power of the income that people have is either stagnant or going down, they have concerns about their economic security.

So let's have a timetable for the American people. Let's have a timetable on our consideration of a trade bill that addresses the concerns and is compatible with the needs of America's working families. That is, I think, the only fair thing to do.

The President ignored those concerns and sent the bill over. I pledged to this body, as Speaker of the House, that at the appropriate time, if many of these concerns are addressed in terms of America's working families, that we can take up legislation for such a trade agreement.

Some have concerns about the content of the agreement. Others have concerns about the treatment of labor organizers in Colombia, and it's a real concern, and one admitted to by the administration and the Colombian Government. There are differences of opinion as to how this is changing, but let's see how we can work together to make that change.

Having control of the time, I will retain the control of the time, Mr. Speaker.

The important point here is, whether it's the substance of the bill, whether it's the conditions in Colombia, they are to be, obviously, major considerations.

But what we're saying to the President, we can't do much about some of these things. We certainly can address the provisions in the bill. But I'm not here to talk about that now.

What we can do something about, what we haven't done enough about is to send a positive economic agenda forth. And these are not difficult. Most of what we're talking to the President about are part of what has passed this Congress in mostly an overwhelming bipartisan way.

Whether we're talking about rebuilding the infrastructure of America, whether we're talking about investments in an innovation agenda, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number 1, and that innovation begins in the classroom, and we have to have a strong commitment to the education of our people, whether we're talking about tax credits for our energy bill which we passed here, which would immediately create jobs. No, if we don't do it we will lose jobs that exist now. Same thing with infrastructure. If we don't make those investments, our projects will have to discontinue. But many more are ready. Dirt is ready to fly. The projects are in the pipeline.

There is a way to create good-paying jobs right here in America. We've passed the legislation. The vehicles are there for us to do it. And at the same time, we have to address the concerns of those who have lost their jobs, whether it's unemployment insurance or summer jobs program for their children or other initiatives.

So this is nothing new. And, in fact, the whole idea that we were going into recession is nothing new to most families across America. It took a while for the President and his administration to accept that fact, and, when they did, we could talk. And when they did, we could talk, we could work together, as Mr. Boehner and I did, with the Secretary of the Treasury, to put together a stimulus package that had strong bipartisan support, and, as the President has said, has not gone into effect yet. And when it does, I know it will inject demand into the economy, create jobs and, I think, stimulate the economy.

But since we did that, matters have only become worse, necessitating the need for us to do more. And we certainly should do more for our economy. And we certainly should do more for our economy before we pass another trade agreement. It's all possible in the days that are before us.

But instead of having the President's timetable, we have the timetable of the House of Representatives, we have a timetable for America's working families.

And nothing that we are doing here now should be misconstrued in terms of our attitude toward Colombia. Colombia is our friend, is a neighbor in the hemisphere. The relationship between Colombia and the United States is an important one.

We have concerns about workers in Colombia, and we respect the leadership of President Uribe. And as I said to the Ambassador yesterday, I hope you will convey that message to the President, and when you do, I hope you will also tell him we congratulate him on his excellent representation in the United States in ambassador service here.

So this isn't about ending anything. It's about having a timetable that respects the concerns, the aspirations, the challenges faced by the American people. We are the people's House. Their timetable should be our timetable.

I urge our colleagues to support the rule.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the committee, for their leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. It isn't without a tear in the eye that we bring this to the floor and remember our colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos, and how important this resolution would have been to him.

Twenty years ago when I was a new Member of Congress, Tom invited some of us to a meeting that I will never forget. It was with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. At that time he presented to us his proposal for autonomy for Tibet. That is over 20 years ago he has been preaching autonomy, and it is on that basis that we wanted him to have the opportunity to have full negotiations with the Chinese Government. They had said if he doesn't reject the idea of independence, that cannot happen. Well, he rejected independence 20 years ago, much to the dismay of those who want independence.

But, in any event, Tom Lantos opened the door for many of us to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Twenty years later, in the Capitol of the United States, under Tom's leadership and of that Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, we were able to present to His Holiness the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that this body can bestow. I am proud to say that President Bush stood there side-by-side with His Holiness presenting our Congressional Gold Medal to him. No President before had been so courageous, and I appreciate and am proud that President Bush did that.

Following that, we talked about taking a trip to India to talk about global warming, that our Energy Independence and Global Warming Task Force, which Mr. Markey and Mr. Sensenbrenner, who spoke so eloquently earlier, were in the lead on.

When we planned the trip, we had accepted His Holiness' invitation to visit him in Dharamsala, without any thought that it would be at a controversial time. As fate would have it, we made our plans in December and January. When we got there in the middle of March, it was following the crackdown in Tibet of the peaceful demonstrators in Lhasa and in other parts of Tibet by the Chinese Government. It was stunning really to see the reaction of the Chinese to the simple observance of the 49th anniversary of the Dalai Lama being forced out of Tibet by the Chinese. As the monks demonstrated and protested, the Chinese government cracked down.

While we were there, it was interesting to hear that the Government of China was saying that His Holiness was the instigator of violence in China,

that he had the ``heart of a jackal'' and all kind of animal references. We all love our animals, but they were not appropriate to His Holiness. We all know His Holiness to be the personification of nonviolence in the world, a bridge builder for peace and human understanding, as we said in our presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to him.

So we thought it must be our fate, it must be our karma, that we would be in Dharamsala at that time. As was indicated by some of our colleagues, Mr. Inslee mentioned that some monks had traveled for 5 days over Himalayas to Dharamsala to tell us about the treatment they had received.

Some of the people we met with, Mr. Smith, had been in prison for many years in China. One woman who was in her eighties had been in prison for over 25 years. We heard of the torture that was exacted upon them as recently as a matter of days before we were there. So the torture that you described that you heard about in your committee continues to this day, and we very tearfully received that information from the prisoners.

But the point is that in Tibet you are arrested and repressed for what you believe; not even for acting upon your beliefs, but for what you believe, and that is something that flies in the face of everything we stand for as a country. That is why I was so pleased that the President stood there and showed bipartisan spirit, Democrats and Republicans coming together, as Mr. Smith mentioned. We have worked on this issue for many years and in a very bipartisan way in terms of China.

Another place where China has influence that Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf have been leaders has been in the Sudan. But for the Chinese's absolute insistence that they will not sanction the Sudan at the U.N., we could perhaps have an improvement in the human rights situation and the political situation in the Sudan.

Many of us took a trip, many Members have been there, I led a delegation there with Mr. Clyburn to Darfur a couple of years ago and we saw firsthand the genocide that was going on there. It was horrible to see. We went to several camps. In one camp, 100,000 refugees were there. We saw the little children. The tiny ones really still had some brightness in their eyes. The older ones, they had seen too much.

In this camp, in the evening when it would be cool, if the father went out to get firewood, he would be killed. If the mother went out, she could be raped. In any event, the children could be kidnapped. They had been displaced from their villages with compliance of the Government of Sudan.

All we need is strong international leadership to end that situation. China stands in the way. When we are talking about Tibet and when we are talking about the Olympics and we are talking about Tibet, we have to remember Burma as well and the house arrest also for all these many years.

We have to remember what is happening in Darfur. I was reading in the paper the other day as the torch was going through Paris that one of the marchers, the carriers of the torch said that what was happening with the protesters was very unpleasant. I thought, you think that's unpleasant? Maybe you should be in the sub-human conditions that the refugees are in Darfur. If you think that's unpleasant, maybe you should be in a prison in Tibet for your faith and His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.

You think that's unpleasant? Maybe you could still be in prison from the Tiananmen Square massacre. Some people are still in prison from that time.

Mr. Smith knows well the fight we had at the time because shortly after, a couple of years after Tiananmen, we were still fighting for the release of the prisoners of Tiananmen. We had about a $5 billion a year trade deficit.

We thought that that would give us so much leverage with the Chinese Government that surely if we threatened the most-favored nation status, as it was called then, that they would yield and release these prisoners because it meant $5 billion a year to them.

Well, we didn't win. We didn't prevail in that situation.

As I say, it was a Republican President and a Democratic President. We didn't get any better policy from either of them when it came to China. They told us that granting most-favored nation status, they changed the name to permanent normal trade relations because it sounded better, would, in fact, improve the political situation in China and improve our trade relationship with China.

When these people are saying it's unpleasant, I think it's unpleasant to think that a $5 billion a year trade deficit is now $5 billion a week, $5 billion a week. That is a quarter of a trillion dollars a year trade deficit with China.

Has it improved our trade relationship? I don't think so. Has it improved the human rights situation in China? I don't think so.

Somewhere along the way we lost our way. We said at the time, some of us, if you choose to ride this tiger that is China, only China will decide when you can get off. China won the Olympics. Some of us supported resolutions in opposition to that, but they won the Olympics.

I don't support a boycott of the Olympics. I think our athletes who have trained should be able to go there and compete. I think it should be treated as a sports event. Any time it tries to rise to the occasion of harmony, one world, one dream, a unifying factor, that is where it falls short, because the Chinese cannot on the one hand take the political upside of the credibility given to them at any welcoming ceremony and refuse to hear the other side of the political view that they are unworthy of making that claim.

As we speak tonight as we are gathered here in this Chamber, in my City of San Francisco human rights activists are preparing for the torch to come through our city tomorrow, a city very committed to human rights. I was very proud that yesterday they were able to display a ``One World, One Dream: Free Tibet'' banner across the Golden Gate Bridge. It's just frightening to think of how they were able to accomplish it, but they got their message across with, probably in my view, the most beautiful backdrop in the world for all the world to see.

Tomorrow, as the torch goes through the city, people will voice their views on it. But, still tonight, Desmond Tutu is leading a prayer vigil in San Francisco in protest of what is happening with that torch going through.

Probably the most insulting of all, though, is that China insists that the torch go through Tibet, that it go to Mount Everest and through Tibet on its way back to Beijing. That's the biggest insult, I think, of all. The world should not allow that to happen. What's right about that?

When I was in Dharamsala, I had the privilege of addressing the crowd gathered in the square. I said at the time that the situation in Tibet challenges the conscience of the world. Indeed, the situation in Darfur challenges the conscience of the world, two places where China can change, make a difference. I also said that if we, the freedom-loving people throughout the world do not stand up for human rights in China and Tibet, then we lose all moral authority to talk about it any other place in the world.

It is many years of activism on this subject, and lots of documentation, but, as Mr. Smith mentioned, we know so many of the people firsthand, such as Harry Wu, who had been imprisoned. Why this is important tonight is because what the Chinese did, the most excruciating form of torture that an oppressor can exact on a political prisoner is to say to him or her nobody even knows you are here. They don't even care about you anymore. Society has passed this issue by. It's no longer important. Your family is out there suffering, you are here forgotten, but the world does not remember you.

Well, we are here tonight to say that the world does, a continuation of the work that Mr. Smith has referenced and others have referenced tonight about our calling to the attention of the world the names, the actual names of people who have been imprisoned for their beliefs, their religious beliefs, their political beliefs. This the resolution is very simple, and when we vote on it tomorrow, I hope we have an overwhelming vote.

What it says to the Chinese Government, as they prepare for the Olympics in harmony, ``One World, One Dream: Free Tibet,'' is that they end the

crackdown in Tibet, that they enter into substantive dialogue directly with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, that they allow independent monitors, journalists and others into Tibet and they also allow medical personnel. As was mentioned, people who have been beaten by the Chinese cannot receive medical assistance and they need that life-saving attention. That's what we are talking about here.

As for the accusation that that jackal, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the instigator of violence in Tibet, started all of this, His Holiness called for and our delegation in Dharamsala associated ourselves with his call which was for an independent outside investigation as to how that all started. If they are going to accuse him, then they must be prepared to have an investigation to prove their point or to be proven wrong.

When we were there, I just want to close by saying, because it was very moving for us, when we got off the airplane and we were driving to Dharamsala for miles and miles and miles and miles, and when we got to Dharamsala to the center of town, we were greeted by many Tibetans flying American flags. We take the pledge in the morning, and any time we see the flag, it is an emotional experience for us. But to see these people who have had to struggle so much for freedom pay homage to our flag was quite a remarkable thing.

Here is one sign, which was my particular favorite. It said, ``Thank you for everything you have done for us so far.'' But all the American flags, the Tibetans flags, and, just again, it was a forest of flags there.

Mr. Holt referenced the children, when we went to the children's school, thousands of adorable children, many of them separated from their families, because that's the only way they could be raised in a Tibetan culture which is now restrained. Here are these children, they drew, they had thousands of these. I brought many of them home, an American flag on one side and on the other side a Tibetan flag, ``Free Tibet, Free Tibet.'' It goes on, ``Long live His Holiness the Dalai Lama.''

``Long live the friendship between the United States and Tibet,'' a friendship that began when Franklin Roosevelt sent His Holiness, when he was a very little boy, a watch. That watch had the rising of the sun, the months of the year, the phases of the moon, and it did tell time too. It was a very special fit, a gold watch. His Holiness has said that he took that watch with him when he left Tibet, imagine, a piece of America in that flight to freedom.

It is our wish that under the provisions of this legislation and the voices being heard all over the world now that those negotiations will take place between the Chinese Government and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I, like many, have asked about the opening ceremonies. You don't want to boycott the Olympics, what about the opening ceremonies?

I think we should, since the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, has put that on the table, it should stay there. Our President should hold back any decision about going to those opening ceremonies until he sees what progress could be made, what leverage we could use to have those negotiations take place so that before too long and while His Holiness is still in good health he can return to Tibet and, indeed, the Tibetan people in their autonomous state of Tibet can be free.

I am very proud of this resolution. I couldn't be prouder of all the statements that were made this evening with all the passion and interest and history that went with it. I think it is a tribute to His Holiness, and I hope the vote tomorrow will be unequivocal about that. I am certain it will. I also they think that it is a tribute to our friend, Tom Lantos, who had been so faithful to this cause.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and recognize his extraordinary leadership on issues that relate to the alleviation of poverty and eradication of disease, which really are a national security interest for our country. They are about the health and well- being, the respect we command throughout the world.

I want to commend Chairman Berman. I think this is probably the first piece of legislation to come out of the committee under your leadership as chairman, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking member of the committee, for their leadership in bringing a bipartisan, strong initiative to the floor. This initiative is a continuation of the work that President Bush has as a priority in the eradication of AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

For those of us who have been involved in these issues over the years, whether on the committees of authorization, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee has been on the authorizing committee, and now on the appropriating committee; Congresswoman Waters, in many ways in the House; and you, Madam Chairman, all of us know that for our country to be healthy, for the eradication of these diseases to take place, we must have a global approach to it. Disease knows no borders and boundaries. So, again, while it is the compassionate thing to do, it is in our self-interest to do as well.

The distinguished chair, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and I, and others, just had the opportunity to visit a PEPFAR site in India at the Salvation Army, where they were distributing these drugs through a regimen, an organized regimen related to hygiene and the rest to people with HIV and AIDS. We can tell you from firsthand experience; I visited these

sites in south Africa, this trip was to India, that wherever we go, there is great appreciation for what our country is doing, and President Bush's leadership on this subject.

I am so pleased that the bill is named for Congressman Chairman Lantos, our friend who left us earlier this year, and Congressman Hyde before that, because they were the original authors of the first historic President's emergency plan for AIDS relief legislation in 2003. That landmark bill authorized $15 billion for 5 years. Working together with the Bush administration and Appropriations Committee, we succeeded in providing lifesaving antiretroviral treatment to almost 1.5 million people, supporting care for nearly 6.7 million people, including more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children; and supporting prevention of more than 150,000 infected infants. We are talking about AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Now we must take the next step in fighting AIDS in the poorest countries of the world. The legislation before us will move us from the emergency phase to the sustainability phase in fighting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

My colleagues have presented the provisions of the bill to you, so I will just submit mine for the Record, Madam Chairman, and just say in closing that the leadership against HIV/AIDS is our compact with developing nations across the globe. It says that America stands with them in this fight, that our commitment will not waver, and shows them America's true face of passion.

Since the AIDS epidemic began, 20 million men, women, and children have died from the disease. Twenty million. Forty million around the globe are HIV positive. That is what we know. We don't even know of those who have not come forth to be tested. Each and every day, another 6,000 people become infected with HIV. In addition, the number of orphans, vulnerable children with sick parents and adolescents at risk with HIV continues to grow, with an estimated 19 million needing assistance by 2010.

There is a moral imperative to combat this epidemic. If we have these drugs distributed in the manner in which they are under the President's program, this PEPFAR, then people will come forward to be tested, then we will have better success with our prevention initiatives. So it's all related. Care causes people to say there is a reason to be tested, and knowing the consequences of the disease contributes to the prevention effort.

Few crises have called out for more sustained constructive American leadership. This legislation before us makes that commitment. I urge our colleagues to support it. Once again, I salute you, Mr. Payne, for your leadership in so many ways that relate to, again, the eradication of disease and the alleviation of poverty and the strength of America related to that and how we are viewed in the world and how that all contributes to a healthier America.

All of these, if we don't, we will have a fury of despair that springs from a lack of hope in the world that contributes to violence and, again, takes us back to the security of our country. So for that security, and out of compassion, I urge my colleagues to support this initiative, which is President's Bush's initiative, named for our colleagues, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde, put forth by the chair, Mr. Berman, and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen in a strong bipartisan way, and we salute that, and advocated by Mr. Payne of New Jersey.

I urge my colleagues to support it.