Floor Statements

I thank Mr. Conyers, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding and thank Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. They know, as does each and every one of us, that our primary responsibility is to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we take an oath of office, as has been referenced, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.

In the preamble it states that one of our primary responsibilities is to provide for the common defense. We take those responsibilities seriously, and I don't take seriously any statements by some in this body that any person here is abdicating that responsibility.

All of us understand also the role that intelligence plays. In protecting our troops, force protection, that used to be our primary responsibility and now, of course, Homeland Security is part of that.

None of us would send our troops into harm's way without the intelligence to perform their mission and keep them safe, although some have been willing to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way without the equipment they need to keep them safe, but we don't make any accusations against them that they are not patriotic Americans who don't want to protect the American people.

Chairman Conyers and Chairman Reyes have already pointed out in some detail this legislation will meet our responsibility to protect America while also protecting our precious civil liberties. The President has said that our legislation will not make America safe. The President is wrong, and I think he knows it. He knows that our legislation contains within it the principles that were suggested by the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, early on, as to what is needed to protect our people in terms of intelligence.

The administration demands that Congress grant immunity to companies for activities about which the President wants only a small number of Members of Congress, and no member of the judicial branch, deciding on any currently filed lawsuits to know anything about.

The bill before us acknowledges that immunity for the companies may already exist under current law and allows that determination to be decided by a judge with due protection for classified information, not by hundreds of people who really do not have the facts.

Why should the administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity. Well, there are at least three explanations. First, the President knows that it's the administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in statute is what has prevented immunity from being conveyed. That is one possibility. They simply didn't do it right.

Second, the administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong, or public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.

None of these alternatives is attractive, but they clearly demonstrate why the administration's insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies. It has always been about protecting the administration.

As important as the issue of immunity might be, it is chiefly important to the administration and the telecommunications companies as they look back to events that occurred as many as 6 years ago. What is truly important to the security of our country and the protections of our Constitution going forward are the amendments made to the FISA bill in title I in this bill that is on the floor today, the so-called surveillance title of the bill.

The bill contains three of the essential provisions of the bill passed by the House in November and, in doing so, explicitly rejects the heart of the President's warrantless surveillance program. Those provisions are:

One, the reinstatement that FISA remains the exclusive means to authorize electronic surveillance. The President likes to think he has inherent authority to surveil, to collect on anybody, and this bill restates that FISA is the exclusive authority. This was a point conceded to in 1978 when the Congress of the United States established the FISA law, passed the FISA law, which was signed by the President of the United States, thereby his recognition of Congress's ability to make the courts, the third branch of government, the exclusive authority for the collection of intelligence in the United States. That is exclusivity.

Second, except in emergencies, FISA Court approval must take place before surveillance begins, but there are exceptions in case of emergency.

Third, a refusal to follow the Senate in excluding, and this is very important because people are talking about the Senate bill as though it is some great thing. This is very important: A refusal to follow the Senate in excluding from the definition of electronic surveillance activities historically considered within the definition. In other words, if they don't want the law to apply to a particular activity, they will just say it doesn't fall into this bill.

If the administration's change in the definition was accepted, FISA- derived information, including U.S. person information, could be data- mined with fewer protections than are currently in place under FISA. This is very important to each and every person in America.

The President insists that we pass the Senate bill as is. Yet even that legislation's chief author, Chairman Rockefeller, agrees that many of the House provisions improve the Senate bill.

This legislation before us today will ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect the American people. And the President knows it.

This legislation will ensure that we protect what it means to be an American, our precious civil rights and civil liberties. Both goals are essential and both are achieved in this bill. I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

May I begin by thanking the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for his masterly work in bringing this budget before us. It is fiscally sound. It is a responsible blueprint to build our economy, moving us forward and strengthening our national security. The Democratic budget, which is the budget for our country, puts the future first. It is about future generations, and it moves us to surplus by 2012.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the fiscal soundness of this budget.

While being fiscally sound, the budget is also a plan again to get our country moving. It is a budget for the future by putting family budgets first, helping make affordable everything from energy to groceries to college education, helping families avoid foreclosures, and lowering, lowering, taxes. It provides for us to have middle-income tax cuts. This is about America's families and their economic security.

It invests in the future by investing in renewable energy to make America more energy independent and secure and to create green jobs. It is a blueprint for a green revolution in our country.

It creates a new generation of innovators by investing in math, science, engineering and technology, to keep good-paying jobs here in America. In total, we provide $7.1 billion more than last year for education and job training.

It rebuilds America's crumbling infrastructure, which again is an engine of job creation, and makes health care more affordable for families and veterans. VA health care will receive a $3.6 billion increase to care for the men and women who have defended America.

I read this list of provisions in the bill to show that this budget is really a statement of our values. It shows to the American people that we indeed care about them and the budget that we write is relevant to their lives. These are priorities that leading economic experts have said will put our Nation on solid economic footing.

Our budget is also a plan for a stronger America that begins to restore military readiness and better protect Americans against terrorism. Many of you know that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is also the second-highest ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, so he brings to this budget process a full knowledge of our national security needs, a full commitment to our military and their families, and dedication to our veterans which has been unsurpassed.

In this bill in terms of national security, ours is a plan to make Americans safer and stands in stark contrast to the President's priorities in Iraq. That misguided war has badly strained our military, distracted us from the fight against terrorism, and damaged our reputation in the world. In fact, the funds committed to that war, some say $3 trillion, huge amounts of money, not only are an opportunity cost for investments here at home in our own education and reconstruction and military readiness, but the deep debt that we are incurring because of the war in Iraq is damaging to our economy. We cannot continue to borrow to pay for the war in Iraq and not see it have an impact on our economy, and that is in addition to the rising cost of oil prices that are related to the war in Iraq as well.

We begin in our national security to reestablish America's strength by rebuilding our military, investing in equipment and training that our military requires, and making caring for our troops, veterans, and military families a top priority.

Our plan stands in stark contrast to the President's priorities and the Republican budget, which would undermine health care for seniors and working families by cutting Medicare and Medicaid over half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years and charge veterans and military retirees more than $18 billion in new fees over 5 years. Our budget does not do that. The Republican budget puts the burden of additional fees on our veterans.

The Republican budget eliminates essential funding for State and local law enforcement and cuts EPA grants that would help protect our planet and our health.

On inauguration day 2009, President Bush will move out of the White House. But, unfortunately, his fiscal legacy will remain unless we can reverse that.

The Bush administration turned a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, I heard our distinguished majority leader talking about this earlier, into a $3.2 trillion deficit. That is historic, that is a historic fiscal turnaround of epic proportions, nearly a $10 trillion swing in fiscal soundness. The President leaves a record of breathtaking fiscal recklessness.

Budgets are more than just accounting documents. Budgets, our Federal budget, I believe, should be a statement of our national values. What we believe in our Nation should be reflected in the allocation of our resources, in our budget.

With this budget, the New Direction Congress and under the leadership of Chairman Spratt is saying that we value families and their economic future, we will fight to insure their hard work is rewarded, and that the American Dream is renewed.

With this statement of our values, we are saying that we do value our valiant men and women in uniform. We will insist that they receive the tools and training they need to perform their mission, and that when they return home, they will come to high quality health care.

And we were saying in this statement that we value our children. We will invest in their education, their health care, and their future, and do this without leaving them a legacy of debt.

My colleagues, we must make clear that the American values are the values of this House. We should have a statement of the values of the American people in the budget that we put forth, and we do today, to invest in our children's health and education and strengthening families, to provide for the national security of our country by rebuilding our military and respecting our responsibility to our veterans, by investing in the future and innovation and new energy technologies and the education that goes with it. We must make clear that this is a budget plan for a stronger America, for stronger families, for a stronger economy, and a stronger military.

I urge my colleagues to support with great pride the budget put forth by Mr. Spratt in the Budget Committee this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen for yielding and for their support of this important resolution. I thank Mr. Duncan for his leadership and for supporting this resolution. Mr. DeFazio, of course, has been a champion on these issues for a long time. And in terms of building the infrastructure of America, Mr. Blumenauer has, through his relentless advocacy for building America's infrastructure in an environmentally sound way, has added to the vision of how we want to do this.

I learned about the Gallatin Report, which you talked about, Mr. DeFazio, from Mr. Blumenauer. Imagine 200 years ago, around the time of the Lewis and Clark expeditions and the Louisiana Purchase, a great President

realized that for commerce to flow and for people to move and our country to flourish, we needed to build the infrastructure of our country; and Mr. DeFazio described the immensity of that project by Albert Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury.

Secretary Gallatin said at the time his vision of roads and canals to unite our young Nation could not be left to individual exertion. Contrary to popular thinking at the time, Gallatin had the great foresight to see the long-term benefits of infrastructure investments far outweighed the cost. And because of that, public capital, not just private resources, were necessary.

From the beginning of our country, our Founders and the leaders of our country were entrepreneurs. They were risk-takers. They believed in public-private partnerships, and that is what this was.

At the beginning of the 19th century, it is important I think to note, there were barely 1,000 miles of canals in America. Sixty years later, in part because of the vision of Albert Gallatin, more than 4,200 miles of canals, ranging west to Illinois, north to Michigan, and south to Texas, facilitated trade and mobility across our country.

The Erie Canal, the transcontinental railway, and America's model of planning and investment stand today as legacies of Albert Gallatin's vision. A statue of Albert Gallatin stands today at the entrance to the Treasury Department building in recognition of his many accomplishments.

It is in the tradition of Albert Gallatin that 100 years later, again my teacher and mentor on the history of this vision for America, Mr. Blumenauer, informs me that Theodore Roosevelt launched a similar commitment by convening a White House conference on conservation to preserve America's natural beauty. That led to the creation of the National Park Service and helped a growing America remain a great America and continue on to be an even greater America.

In 2008, 100 years later, 200 years after Thomas Jefferson and Secretary Gallatin, 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt, in keeping with the tradition of visionary leaders like them, we are prepared to invest in America's strength. We again must invest in our infrastructure to do so.

Today that means green solutions such as mass transit and modern solutions such as expanding broadband across America.

Whether we're talking about roads or bridges or mass transit, whether we're talking about canals and waterways, sewage and water facilities, whether we're talking about broadband or we're talking about the grid to transmit electricity, whether it be talking about schools, an investment in infrastructure that serves the needs of our children and their education, all of this infrastructure needs a major, major infusion of capital, and we want to do that in a fiscally sound way.

Just as they did 200 years ago, these infrastructure investments offer our Nation job-creating opportunities to invigorate, reinvigorate America's economies. Anything we're talking about in terms of infrastructure means good-paying jobs right here at home in America. It's not only about creating those jobs; it's about growing our economy.

Today, because of the leadership of Mr. Oberstar, the distinguished Chair of the committee, Mr. DeFazio, who opened the debate here, Mr. Duncan, thank you as well, and the leadership of Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Congress has the opportunity to honor the genius of the Gallatin plan, as the resolution says, establishing a more perfect Union.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Secretary Albert Gallatin who, with his plan, encouraged the prosperity and the national unity of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his leadership on protecting the American people. In addition to being Chair of the Intelligence Committee, he has served for many years on the Armed Services Committee. He brings to his position on Intelligence the commitment that we all have, to protecting the American people, to building a strong military second to none to do that, to protect the American people. He knows that force protection is one of the main priorities of intelligence, to protect our forces, and when they are in harm's way, to make sure they have the intelligence to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress has made strengthening national security and improving America's intelligence capabilities a top priority. It is our major responsibility, to protect the American people.

Our very first piece of legislation, H.R. 1, took the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations off the shelf, as they had been in the Republican Congress, and put them into law to better protect the American people. We then began our efforts to strengthen America's military, the readiness of which has been greatly depleted by the President's failed Iraq policy.

To restore our military strength, we have expanded the size of the Army and Marine Corps, passed legislation insisting that only fully mission-capable forces be deployed, and funded essential equipment, including armored Humvees.

Mr. Speaker, America's security depends on the strength of our military as we all know, but also the quality of information gathered and analysis provided by the 16 intelligence agencies that make up our Nation's intelligence community. As someone who has served on the House Intelligence Committee now as a member and ex officio for 16 years, longer than anyone in the Congress, I understand that policymakers in Congress and in the executive branch must be able to rely on accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence. That is why this intelligence authorization bill invests in human intelligence, counterterrorism operations, and analysis. It is a critical step in protecting our Nation. And the President should have signed it into law.

Regrettably, President Bush vetoed these critical investments in our intelligence capabilities because this legislation extended the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture to intelligence community personnel.

The prohibition on torture that the President vetoed protected our values, protected American military and diplomatic personnel, and protected Americans by ensuring accurate intelligence. Our Nation is on a stronger ground ethically and morally when our practices for holding and interrogating captives are consistent with the Geneva Conventions, when we do not torture.

We all have our views here about intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination; and, again, much of the focus is on force protection. So I look to the words of those who have served in the military for their view on this subject.

In the words of Retired RADM Donald Guter, a former Navy Judge Advocate General, he says: ``There is no disconnect between human rights and national security. They are synergistic. One doesn't work without the other for very long.''

Failing to legally prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh torture techniques also risks the safety of our soldiers and other Americans serving overseas. In a letter to the congressional Intelligence Committee chairmen, 30 retired generals and admirals, including General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, the command that oversees our military activities in the Iraq region, the Middle East and greater Middle East area, those 30 retired generals and admirals, looking again to the voices of those who have led in the military, stated: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans.''

Many military officials and intelligence professionals have also stated that torture is ineffective; it is unlikely to produce the kind of timely and reliable information needed to disrupt terrorist plots.

I want to reinforce the message of my colleague, the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, in quoting the words of General David Petraeus. As Mr. Hoyer just stated, but I think it bears repeating, the words of General David Petraeus: ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. That would be wrong,'' General Petraeus said. He went on: ``Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they are frequently neither useful nor necessary.''

These leading military men and women and those of us who support this legislation's ban on torture believe that we can and we must protect America while preserving our country's deeply held principles.

In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might but also on our moral authority. Today, we can begin to reassert that moral authority by overriding the President's veto.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio, Congresswoman Sutton, for yielding and for managing this very challenging bill this evening with such dignity.

This is an important time for us, my colleagues, because we are sending a message to the American people as to who we are. We know each other to be honorable individuals who come here with the best motivation. Our title ``Representative'' is our job description, to represent the people of our districts. We gain respect for each other as we work on issues across the aisle, across the region, across generations in every way, representing the beautiful diversity of our country.

Unfortunately, the American people do not share our view of ourselves here in the Congress and our reputation has received tarnish. Part of that tarnish came from a culture of corruption that preceded the Democratic takeover of this Congress. When I became Speaker of the House, I said it was necessary to drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C. so that the people will understand that we are here for the people's interest and not the special interests.

And so this legislation that is before us today represents what I believe is necessary for us to convey to the American people what we owe them: our best effort to have this Congress live up to the highest ethical standard.

And I know of what I speak because I had the responsibility to serve on the Ethics Committee for 6 years when we took up some terrible issues. The bank scandal, remember that? Many of you weren't here yet, but it was a horrible time. The Newt Gingrich case, it was a horrible time. During that time, as divided as we were, Democrat and Republican, I would pray at night that something exculpatory would come along, something that would say we don't need to continue this case because there is evidence that these charges are not true. It is hard, it is hard to pass judgment on your colleagues. It is very difficult.

And I say that in the most bipartisan way, and we worked together on that committee in a very bipartisan way during some very difficult times.

After 6 years, I thought my service was over; and I had to spend another year on what Mr. Hoyer referenced as the Livingston-Cardin Committee to rewrite the rules. We thought we did a really good job; but, obviously, a review of them some years later said we have to do more.

But that has been the story of ethics in the Congress. Since the Ethics Committee was first created in 1967, the House has set increasingly higher standards of conduct to guide Members because public service is a public trust. As I said, in recent years that trust has been eroded, and we have come here to drain the swamp.

Just last year on the first day of the Congress, the New Direction Congress, the House implemented new and sweeping changes to the gift and travel restrictions. Last September we passed the historic Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, historic lobbying and ethics reform that is now the law of the land.

Today, the New Direction Congress will, for the first time, open the ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which will make this institution more accountable to the people who sent us here, the American people. I welcome their assistance.

I want to say a word about Mr. Capuano. I want to thank him for his service to our country. In recognizing him, I want to recognize the participation of all of the members, Democrats and Republicans, on the task force, for their service to this House; and I believe there was a good-faith effort made to keep this process as bipartisan as possible. And that is the best you can do. If at the end of the day there is not a willingness to make the reforms necessary to restore the confidence of the American people in the Congress of the United States, then you cannot be held back because some do not want to act.

Mr. Capuano, I believe, led this effort in a way that was bipartisan and sensitive to the institution's history and traditions. And I must say that I received, early on, compliments from his co-Chair, the Republican co-Chair of the committee, about working with Mr. Capuano. He said something like, I am sorry you appointed him because he is very good to work with. That was supposed to be a joke.

In any event, I would like to extend special thanks to him for undertaking this very difficult task, not only in trying to make something that is important work, but also to convince our colleagues that this is the route to take.

Now as I said, I served on the committee under the old rules and I helped write the new rules, and there is always a time to revisit all of it. And there will be a time to revisit these rules as well.

A special thanks to my friend, Mr. David Hobson, for his work on the task force and for his many years of distinguished service in the Congress. We will miss his thoughtful deliberations and his contributions to our country. Thank you, David Hobson.

As I mentioned, I served on the Ethics Committee during some very, very difficult times; and I want to extend my deep respect and appreciation to those who serve on this committee now and who have served past and present. Until you have undergone that, until you have undergone that, you cannot really understand how difficult it is. And how happy you are when your term of office ends. But I want to salute them, all of them, past and present, for their important work.

I have deep respect for what Mr. Capuano, striving to work in a bipartisan way, has tried to achieve. Adopting the Capuano Task Force recommendations will provide the public and the House with the assurance that credible, credible allegations of wrongdoing will be addressed by the Ethics Committee in a timely fashion. I emphasize the word ``credible'' because I have no doubt that the main target of this, and who do you think the main target of any outside groups to this group will be? You're looking at her. You are looking at her.

But I am willing to take that risk because I also trust, yes, I also trust, my polite colleagues, I also trust that this group will rid itself of frivolous, baseless complaints and send a message to those who would file repeated frivolous complaints that is their price to pay to do this. I consider this a protection.

It will bring an additional measure of transparency to the ethics enforcement process. It creates this transparency, I think it is important to note, without compromising the House's constitutional prerogatives to discipline its Members without interfering with the work of the Ethics Committee and without altering the substantive rules governing the conduct of the committee's deliberations.

I fully realize that bringing non-Members to this enforcement mechanism is not only a step forward; it is a departure. It is a departure from the traditions of the House.

To those who have those concerns, I pledge that I will work closely with my friend, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, to jointly appoint the members of this new Office of Congressional Ethics, fair men and women who understand the importance of nonpartisan behavior and the compelling need to act fairly to protect the interests of the public, the House, and especially the Members.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I pledge that the House leadership, and I know I heard, listened with great interest to what Mr. Hoyer had to say about this, and thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for your extraordinary leadership on making Congress more accountable and live up to a high ethical standard. Our leadership will closely monitor the work of the new Office of Congressional Ethics and continually review all reasonable proposals intended to guarantee the highest ethical conduct and a more transparent and effective ethics process. Whether they relate to the new panel or the Ethics Committee itself, if additional changes are required, we will propose them.

And since I mentioned Mr. Hoyer's name, I want to associate myself with one of the remarks he made. I thought it was 30 days. Mr. Hoyer said 45 days. But in a very short period of time, according to the proposal that the Republicans are putting forth, in a very short period of time if the Ethics Committee had not disposed of those charges, they would go to the Justice Department. They would go to the Justice Department.

Well, the Ethics Committee is about the rules of the House, about conducting ourselves in a way that brings honor to the House. Many of those issues are not matters for the Justice Department. The Justice Department knows when its jurisdiction should weigh in.

This is about the facts, the rules of the House, and sometimes the law of the land. It's not about hearsay, rumor, suspicion, I thought so, somebody told me. It's about the facts, the rules and the law of the land. That is all that matters. That is all that matters.

I think that this evening this Congress has an opportunity to send a message to the American people, and as we do, each and every one of us does as well. Our votes will speak for themselves. We are willing to take a chance to make a vote on something we might have written differently. And I don't know one bill I've ever voted for that I wouldn't have, something you might have written differently, but something that can strive to remove the doubt that is in the minds of the American people about the integrity of this body.

I hope that you will all join in voting for this. It is worthy of your support. I know that, with my vote, I will be able to say I did everything I could, respecting the work of those who undertook this for practically 1 year to come up with a proposal that was fair, that was effective, and that helped us drain the swamp and say to our bosses, the people who sent us here, we honor you with our service, and we pledge to you that we will always serve in a Congress that upholds the highest ethical standard.

This is an important vote. I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye.'' And I thank Mr. Capuano once again for his extraordinary leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership in bringing the rule to the floor, which will enable us to debate legislation that is very important to many people in America. I thank Mr. Pallone for his leadership on the committee of jurisdiction, a House subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, and I thank Mr. Hastings as well for the opportunity to debate this important issue.

This is a very special day in the Congress of the United States. We are all very proud of our work, but there are some days that really stand out as historic, days that represent breakthroughs for America's families.

Today we are debating an issue that is relevant to the lives of so many people in our country. And we owe a great debt of gratitude to two of our colleagues, Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and Congressman Ramstad of Minnesota, for their great knowledge of the issue of mental illness and addiction, for their political astuteness of the political process here, and for their generosity of spirit to share their personal experience with us, to use their knowledge of issues relating to mental illness and addiction to benefit so many people in our country. It is painful, I know, and therefore very courageous of them to do so. And simply said, without their leadership, we would not have this opportunity today. So I am pleased to salute the leadership of Congressman Kennedy and Congressman Ramstad. With this legislation, they have given hope to millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation also because illness of the brain must be treated just like illness anywhere else in the body. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act is a comprehensive bill to help end discrimination against those who seek treatment for mental illness.

There is no shame in mental illness. The great shame would be if Congress did not take action to ensure that individuals with mental health illnesses and addictions are given the attention, treatment, and resources they need to lead a healthy life.

This is an issue of national significance. Did you know, and I found the figure startling, every year mental illness results in 1.3 billion lost days of work or school; 1.3 billion days. That adds up to more lost productivity for mental illness than arthritis, stroke, heart attack, and cancer combined. Combined. Yet bipartisan and independent research shows that there is no significant cost to insuring mental illness like any other medical disease.

This legislation will be especially relevant for our returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who later become employed in the private sector. This will be potentially life-saving for those brave men and women who served in the National Guard and Reserves but who don't receive VA care for their entire lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, to help remove the stigma against mental illness, for the millions suffering from mental illness and addiction, and because it is the right thing for our Nation, I urge my colleagues to support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. It is legislation that is long overdue. It gives hope to millions of people in our country and their families.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and honor the leadership, the courage, the generosity of spirit of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad in making this day possible for us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his very generous remarks, and for his tremendous leadership. Once again, he is providing an opportunity for this Congress to come down on the side of America's families instead of a special interest. Once again, he has come down at a place that talks about energy independence and security for our country.

One year ago, actually a little longer, in January of 2007, Mr. Rangel brought to the floor legislation similar to this. What it did was to repeal the subsidies for Big Oil and to use the funds for research into renewable energy resources

and incentives, tax incentives for that purpose. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly. It again passed as part of our bipartisan energy bill, but it did not survive the Senate because the President threatened to veto the bill if these subsidies to Big Oil were repealed. Imagine that. And so the energy bill, as much of a triumph as it was by having new CAFE standards for the first time in 32 years in the bill, did not have this very important other part, which would be the tax incentive for renewable energy resources.

Again, I thank Chairman Rangel for his persistence and for bringing this legislation to the floor now to give us this very special opportunity.

When Mr. Rangel first brought the bill to the floor last January, since then the price of gasoline at the pump has gone up 75 cents; 75 cents since we first took up this legislation. Imagine what that means to a household income. It is 17 cents, the price at the pump has increased 17 cents just in the past 2 weeks. Just yesterday, oil prices reached another new record at more than $101 per barrel. This is at a time when oil companies are making record profits.

Listen to this, my colleagues. Last year, ExxonMobil earned $40.6 billion in profit; $40.6 billion in profit. The largest corporate profit in American history. And yet, the administration refuses to repeal billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil.

This bill repeals those subsidies and invests in clean renewable energy that will put us on a path toward energy security and energy independence in a fiscally responsible way, by repealing subsidies to Big Oil, only to Big Oil, already making record profits.

With the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act that we are considering today, we have the opportunity to invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and grow our economy, creating new jobs, lower energy costs, strengthen national security and reduce global warming.

This legislation, and it is very important because there are so many people across the country who are being innovators, who are being disrupters, who are making change, and this change centering around energy is very, very important, and this legislation is vital to them. This legislation strengthens and extends the production tax credit which will spur deployment of wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal, and landfill gas. It extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax credit and offers tax incentives for residential solar, wind, and geothermal technologies. It creates a new production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol and extends the biodiesel production tax credit.

It expands the tax credit for gas stations that install alternative fuel pumps, such as the E85 pumps.

It includes tax incentives to promote greater efficiency for homes and businesses and creates a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles.

It creates a new category of tax credit bonds to fund local initiatives to promote the deployment of green technologies. I know this has been said before. I reiterate this because this is very, very important and represents real change for our country.

This bill helps create broadly based prosperity with an $18 billion investment in the future. It will spur the production of clean renewable energy resources and provide business with the certainty necessary to make long-term plans to build viable and sustaining markets for these technologies. This is all about answers in the marketplace.

It will ensure that we keep the jobs that were created with the renewable tax credits and create hundreds of thousands more, the next generation of good-paying, green collar jobs that will be right here in America.

Because this legislation is vital for a greener and more prosperous future, it is supported by a broad coalition from business, environmental, and labor communities, from corporations such as Home Depot and Dow Chemical Company, to the Sierra Club, to the United Steelworkers and the National Farmers Union. I have a long list which I will submit for the Record, corporate, labor, Florida Power & Light Company. The list goes on and on. MMA Renewable Ventures, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, National Association of Realtors, National Electrical Manufacturers, Dupont, Earth Justice, all on the same page. The list goes on and on and on.

This Congress has already taken action to send our Nation in a new direction of energy independence, as I mentioned, by increasing fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years. That was bipartisan legislation signed into law by the President. What is missing are these tax incentives that the distinguished chairman, Mr. Rangel, is bringing to the floor today.

Energy independence is an economic issue in terms of budgets for America's families and creating new green jobs. It is an urgent national security issue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is an environmental and health issue to reduce global warming and protect the health of our children, and it is a moral issue to care for our planet. We work closely with the evangelical community on these issues because they believe, as do I, that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it.

I urge my colleagues to support the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and, in doing so, take the next step for a green economy, green jobs, and a green future.

February 26, 2008.

Dear Representative: As a coalition of businesses,

environmental groups, investors, labor, nongovernmental

organizations, public health organizations, and utilities we

urge you to vote yes on the Renewable Energy and Energy

Conservation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 5351). The bill would

extend federal tax incentives for energy efficiency and

renewable energy technologies that have expired or will

expire at the end of this year. These incentives must be

extended immediately to avoid significant harm to the

developing clean energy industries in the United States. The

technologies produced by these industries play a vital role

in reducing global warming pollution, creating new high-wage

jobs in our country, and saving consumers and businesses

money on their energy bills.

H.R. 5351 would extend tax incentives for renewable energy

production, energy efficiency in commercial buildings,

investment in solar electric systems, use of efficient home

heating and cooling equipment, production of efficient home

appliances, efficiency retrofits to existing homes, and

consumer purchases of energy efficient products.

The incentives in H.R. 5351 would remain effective for

multiple years, which is essential for the development of the

clean energy technology industries. Congress has historically

extended the clean energy incentives in two-year increments,

which creates a boom-bust cycle for the technologies covered

by the incentives. This cycle undermines the efficient

development of the clean energy technology industries into

mature industries.

Most of the incentives in H.R. 5351 have either expired or

will expire at the end of this year. It is critical for the

sustained development of the clean energy technology

industries that these incentives be continued. A disruption

of the incentives would lead to layoffs and a decrease in

much needed private capital flowing to these industries.

According to a recent study by Navigant Consulting, allowing

the renewable energy incentives to expire would lead to about

116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar industries from

now until the end of 2009.

Although H.R. 5351 was introduced without an extension of

the efficient new home tax credit and certain critical

changes to the energy efficiency and renewable energy

incentives, we look forward to working with you to

incorporate the efficient new home credit and these

enhancements into the bill later in the legislative process.

America is on the cusp of a new, clean energy economy. The

clean energy tax incentives in H.R. 5351 would help our

country make the transition to this economy--an economy

powered by low-carbon technologies that help solve global

warming, reduce energy prices for consumers and create new

high-wage jobs. We urge you to vote yes on H.R. 5351.

Sincerely,

Abengoa Solar; Akeena Solar; Alliance to Save Energy;

Ameresco; American Institute of Architects; American

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE);

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); American

Rivers; American Wind Energy Association; Applied

Materials, Inc.; Apricus Inc.; American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,

Inc. (ASHRAE); Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (AHAM); Audubon; Ausra, Inc.; Ballard

Power Systems; Best Buy Co., Inc.; BrightSource Energy;

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)

International.

Business Council for Sustainable Energy; California

Energy Commission; California Solar Energy Industries

Association (CALSEIA); CCIM Institute; Climate

Solutions; Conenergy; Constellation Energy; The Dow

Chemical Company; DuPont; Earthjustice; Energy

Conversion Devices; Energy Innovations, Inc.;

Environment America; Environmental and Energy Study

Institute (EESI); Environmental Law & Policy Center

(ELPC); EPV Solar; Exelon Corporation; Florida Power &

Light Company; Friends Committee on National

Legislation (FCNL); Friends of the Earth; Fuel Cell

Energy.

Great River Energy; Greenpeace; GridPoint; The Home

Depot, Inc.; Hydrogenics; Institute of Real Estate

Management; Insulating Concrete Form Association;

International Council of Shopping Centers; Johnson

Matthey; Lowe's Companies, Inc.; Macy's Inc.;

Millennium Cell, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric &

Electronics USA, Inc.; North American Insulation

Manufacturers Association (NAIMA); MMA Renewable

Ventures, LLC; National Association of Home Builders;

National Association of Industrial and Office

Properties (NAIOP); National Association of REALTORS;

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).

National Small Business Association; National Tribal

Environmental Council; National Wildlife Federation;

Natural Resources Defense Council; New Voice of

Business; Northeast Public Power Association; Oerlikon;

Owens Corning; PG&E Corporation; Physicians for Social

Responsibility; Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers

Association (PIMA); Plug Power, Inc.; PPG Industries; PPM

Energy, Inc.; Public Citizen; Q-Cells AG; REgrid Power;

The Real Estate Roundtable; ReliOn; Retail Industry

Leaders Association.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD); Safeway,

Inc.; SANYO Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation; SCHOTT Solar,

Inc.; Schuco USA LP; Sharp Solar; Sierra Club; SkyFuel

Inc.; Solar Energy Industries Association; Solar

Integrated; Solar Millennium LLC; Solar Power, Inc.;

Solar World; SOLEC-Solar Energy Corporation; Southern

Alliance for Clean Energy; Spire Solar, Inc.;

SunEdison; SunPower Corporation; Suntech America, Inc.;

Target Corporation.

Trane; Trinasolar; Union of Concerned Scientists; United

Solar Ovonic; USA Biomass; US Fuel Cell Council; The

United Steelworkers (USW); United Technologies

Corporation; The Vote Solar Initiative; Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc.; Western Organization of Resource Councils

(WORC); Western Renewables Group; Whirlpool

Corporation; Whole Foods Market, Inc.; Xcel Energy

Company; Yahoo! Inc.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, the Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding.

Today is a very sad day for us for more than one reason. One reason is, though, the matter that is before us. I had hoped, frankly, that this day would never have come, that the respectful negotiations that should take place between article I, the legislative branch, and article II, the executive branch, would have yielded the information that is necessary for Congress to make its decisions.

I thank Chairman Conyers for his distinguished lifetime leadership of protecting the Constitution of the United States. We all take that oath of office, every single one of us who serves. Indeed, every person who serves in any civic capacity in our country does so. Today, we are honoring our oath of office with this resolution that is before us.

Again, I rise in sadness, not in confrontation. This is not a conflict that the Congress has sought. In fact, as the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has indicated, the committee has repeatedly sought to avoid confrontation, repeatedly making requests that have been ignored or rejected by the White House on completely unacceptable terms.

The Judiciary Committee, indeed the Congress, is clearly entitled to this information. It involves neither national security information nor communications with the President. The President has no grounds to assert executive privilege.

On the other hand, Congress has the responsibility of oversight of the executive branch. I know that Members on both sides of the aisle take that responsibility very seriously. Oversight is an institutional obligation to ensure against abuse of power, in this case the politicizing of the Department of Justice. Subpoena authority is a vital tool for that oversight.

Today, we seek to require the Department of Justice to bring contempt motions against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. When our resolution passes, we hope the administration will realize that this House of Representatives, this Congress, is serious about our constitutional role of oversight and will reach a settlement with us over the documents and testimony at issue. I still hold out the hope that they will cooperate.

But if the administration fails to do so, and if it orders the Department of Justice not to file contempt proceedings, we will then, through this resolution, have the power ourselves to go to Federal court and seek civil enforcement of our subpoenas.

The resolution before us today should not be a partisan issue. It should not be. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Former Congressman Mickey Edwards, who once served in the Republican leadership, has said that the enforcement of the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorney matter is about defending Congress, not a Democratic or a Republican Congress, but the people's Congress, as a separate, independent, and completely equal branch of government.

The subject of the Judiciary Committee's investigation involves serious and credible allegations that Federal law enforcement was politicized. Political manipulation of law enforcement undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system. Congress must find out what happened not just in terms of those who were fired but also whether improper criteria were used to retain the remaining U.S. Attorneys.

We must have the information in order to protect against political manipulation of law enforcement, and it must be provided in terms consistent with our constitutional obligations.

The so-called White House offer refused to permit even a transcript of any interviews and to permit questions on discussions and required the committee to promise in advance not to seek further information. This is beyond arrogance; this is hubris taken to the ultimate degree.

As former Congressman Edwards, again I remind, a former member of the Republican leadership in the House, said, ``No Congress, indeed, no lawyer, would ever agree to such an outrageous demand.''

Madam Speaker, we must continue in our efforts to restore our Nation's fundamental system of checks and balances. This Congress and future Congresses must have the ability to conduct meaningful oversight. It is the

hallmark of our constitutional democracy that has served us well for more than two centuries.

Thank you, again, Chairman Conyers, for your leadership, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the subcommittee that dealt with this issue, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, for the important work of the Rules Committee on all of this. To the new Members of Congress, on this issue of article I led by John Yarmuth, article I, protecting the prerogatives of the Congress of the United States, we thank our new Members for their leadership honoring their oath of office. And Brad Miller, an expert on the subject in the Congress, has been a tremendous resource to us as well.

Let us uphold our oath of office by voting for this resolution, my colleagues. Let us restore the rule of law. Let us act to protect and defend our constitution by ensuring appropriate congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for the formal notification of the Congress that he presented earlier to the House of Representatives, and thank him for bringing us this opportunity to express our sadness over the passing of our colleague, Tom Lantos.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, yesterday morning when I received the very sad news of Chairman Lantos's passing, that call was followed very quickly by a call from the President of the United States expressing to me as Speaker, but through me to each and every one of you, his sadness over Tom's passing and his words of praise for Tom Lantos's leadership. I told the President how appreciative I knew we would all be of his kind words and that I would convey them to this House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, you know that the House, not only the House, the Congress, the country, has lost one of its most talented leaders, and the world, indeed the world, has lost one of its greatest champions for human rights with the passing of Chairman Tom Lantos. He was a statesman, he was a gentleman, and he will be deeply missed.

As the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress, Tom Lantos devoted his public life to shining a bright light on the dark corners of oppression. From his earliest days in the House, when he founded with Congressman Jon Porter the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, to his final days as

chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he used his powerful voice to stir the consciousness of world leaders and the public alike.

Because he had lost his mother and so much of his family in the Holocaust, his wife, Annette, his two daughters, Annette and Katrina, his grandchildren and great grandchildren were the center of his universe.

Madam Speaker, I told some of our colleagues earlier that Tom and Annette were a team in every way. Whether it was establishing the Human Rights Caucus or working together for the benefit of his district and our country, they were a team. And all who knew Tom knew how devoted he was to his family and to Annette, whom he adored. They worked as a team, bringing great intellect, experience, and compassion to their outstanding work in public service.

Annette was alone after the Holocaust as well, and when they married, they had two daughters, Annette and Katrina, who produced this wonderful family of 18 grandchildren. Two daughters, 18 grandchildren. They said to their parents, you lost your families in the Holocaust. We are bringing to you a new family. And how proud Tom was for all of that.

Having lived the worst evil known to mankind, Tom Lantos translated his experience into a lifetime commitment to the fight against anti- Semitism, for Holocaust education, and commitment to the State of Israel.

Tom Lantos was not only a champion of human rights. He was an expert on foreign affairs and diplomacy and the security of our country. He had a rare combination of extraordinary knowledge, great wisdom, extraordinary skill and judgment, and a great moral compass.

He rallied us to the cause of defending basic human freedom within the borders of the most powerful countries and in the most remote places in the world. He stood tall in the sometimes lonely fight for the people of China and Tibet. I was proud that we had the opportunity to work together, with the President of the United States in a bipartisan way, to honor the people of Tibet by presenting the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama last year. Tom, along with Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, were coauthors of that legislation. Thank you, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.

He fought to end the genocide in Darfur and recently helped enact legislation to crack down on the Sudanese regime. He worked to strengthen sanctions against the military junta in Burma and worked for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. In just his first year as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Lantos also helped enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations to better protect the American people.

Throughout his three decades in the House, Tom Lantos always used his experience and intellect to empower the powerless and give voice to the voiceless throughout the world.

Here at home, Tom Lantos championed working families. Working families had no better friend in the Congress of the United States than Tom Lantos, and he was a strong leader in protecting our family for the future.

He also authored key provisions of our landmark energy bill, which the President signed into law. Thanks to Tom Lantos, that law includes provisions that will help the United States assume a greater leadership role in the world to fight climate change.

He will long be remembered for his efforts to expand and protect the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which is one of the Nation's most visited national parks and a treasure for Bay Area residents. I had the privilege of serving with Tom as we shared representation of the City of San Francisco, and it was one of the privileges of my service in Congress, to work with him on behalf of the people of San Francisco.

Congressman Lantos was also well known for his strong support of infrastructure improvements, including the expansion of BART service and other mass transit solutions. Though his leadership was felt around the world, he always remained a fierce advocate for his constituents in the 12th Congressional District.

Tom Lantos called himself ``an American by choice.'' America is a stronger nation, a more caring nation, a nation more true to its founding ideals, because Tom Lantos chose to call this land his home.

My thoughts and prayers are with Annette, dear Annette, their daughters Katrina and Annette, his 18 grandchildren, and his great grandchildren. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people throughout the entire world mourn their loss and are praying for them in this sad time.

Good-bye, Tom, my friend. It was an honor to call you colleague, a privilege to serve with you, and a joy to be your friend.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words and his extraordinary leadership, which made it possible for us to come to the floor with this bipartisan historic legislation tonight. Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your leadership. And thank you, Mr. McCrery, for yours. It's quite an evening when we can come together in a bipartisan way for legislation that helps the middle class, helps those aspire to the middle class, gives incentives to businesses to create jobs to stimulate our economy. I thank you for that.

I acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, for his leadership, along with Ranking Member Bachus for his, because those who are concerned about, and that is all of us, the subprime crisis can see some relief in this legislation because of their leadership.

I want to acknowledge another member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Kanjorski, and salute him for his leadership dropping the bill even before we took this up this evening for seniors and disabled veterans to be getting the recovery rebates as well, as well as clarification of language regarding undocumented persons in our country getting that benefit. Thank you, Mr. Kanjorski, for your leadership.

Before I go on too long, I must salute Leader Boehner. It was a privilege to work with him on this. And Mr. Hoyer and I shared a view of our caucus. We came with consensus to the table. None of us got everything we wanted in the legislation, but we did get a great deal for the American people. We did so in a manner that was timely. We were acting in record time, targeted on the

middle class and those who aspire to it, targeted to businesses, tax incentives to businesses to create jobs, and temporary. So these resources and these tax incentives will be used and spent in a way that will have an impact in the economy.

I also want to salute Secretary Paulson for his persistence and his leadership and his receptivity, shall we say, and responsiveness to some of the values that the Democrats were putting on the table regarding those who have not participated in receiving a recovery rebate before, but do so in this bill.

This was across the aisle, but it is also across the Capitol. We worked it out in record time, again, with Leader Reid and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, on the Senate side, so that tonight we could bring this bill to the floor.

It was only about 2\1/2\ weeks ago that leadership was on the telephone with the President of the United States. He had just returned from his trip to the Middle East. And we talked about what every homemaker in America has known for a long time, that our economy is going into a downturn. We wanted to prevent it from being more of a downturn, and a stimulus was needed.

We had heard from Chairman Bernanke about the state of the economy and that a stimulus was needed and that it should have certain features of being timely, targeted, and temporary. And the President, on that phone call, agreed that we should go forward with a stimulus package in record time. The House put it together and sent it over to the Senate. And I'm very, very proud of that.

If I boast of it, it's because it's highly unusual that we can respond in such record time. But we did so because it was urgent for the American people. So often they listen in on the debate on the floor of the House which seems irrelevant to their lives. This is very relevant to their lives because there are many firsts in here.

For the first time, those who don't make over a certain income are able to participate in the recovery rebates and the child tax credit. In fact, more than 40 million Americans, 40 million families will be receiving those rebates and tax credits who had never received a rebate or a tax refundable child tax credit before. That's just astounding.

It was different from the bill the President originally proposed because his proposal did not have a cap, so some of the wealthiest people in America could get this rebate. Instead, we said, God bless them for their success. We need to put this money in the pockets of those who are living paycheck to paycheck, who are finding it hard or struggling to make ends meet with the price of gasoline, the price of groceries, the price of health care, the price of education, anything that you can name, that costs were going up and the purchasing power of their income was not.

And so we believe that the stimulus, the way it is targeted, will put money in the hands of those who will spend it immediately, injecting demand into the economy and therefore creating jobs, the impact that we want the stimulus to have. Same thing with the small business incentives.

One of the reasons we were able to move so quickly is because we were ready. We were ready. The reason we were ready with the child tax credit is because Congresswoman DeLauro has worked on this issue for her lifetime in Congress. And of course as chairman of the committee, Mr. Rangel has had this as a high priority. So it wasn't something that we had to go create. It's something that we had in our minds and in our hearts to do for a long time.

The tax credits, the incentives for small businesses have been a part of the bipartisan support we have in the House for an innovation agenda so that small businesses and medium-size businesses can take advantage in a short period of time of this incentive that they have to invest and to purchase equipment and the rest. Again, for job creation, good- paying jobs here in America.

We were ready because the Financial Services Committee, under the leadership of Mr. Barney Frank and Ranking Member Bachus, had already passed these bills on the floor of the House. Not everything in the bill is included in this stimulus, but these bills have passed the House and had been sent over to the Senate. Certain features are contained in this bill so that there is some relief for the subprime crisis.

The list goes on and on. But we had our priorities; they have been our priorities for a while. They are particularly essential now in the time of a need of stimulus. So when the time came and the President said he would sign such a bill, we were ready with our priorities.

We fought it out. It wasn't an easy fight, but we knew we had to do it in the shortest period of time. And it wasn't easy. And there were some things that I said to the President on the phone when he congratulated us for going forward that I would have liked to have seen in the bill, like unemployment insurance and LIHEAP and food stamps and the rest. But we will take care of those issues in due course. Every bill cannot accomplish every goal that we have.

I want to identify myself with the comments that Mr. Bachus made. This is a fiscally sound bill. There were those who wanted to make it larger with elements that were not necessarily stimulus that we resisted, excellent ideas. They should be revisited in another piece of legislation for another day.

But we had been cautioned over and over, and we have cautioned each other. And whatever we did in stimulus, even though it would not have to conform with PAYGO, strictly speaking, that it would not be so overloaded that it would be a deterrent to recovery because we would be taking our country more deeply in debt than was justified by our stimulus package for recovery.

So, because of all of this cooperation, hopefully, it will serve as a model. I again want to commend Secretary Paulson for his perseverance and his leadership. And we look forward to soon, in a few days, perhaps, the President of the United States signing this bill. But the Secretary has assured us that with the passage of this bill tonight, even before the Presidential signature, the word will go to the IRS to begin the process of getting these checks out to the families.

So I think every Member of this body should take great pride in the bipartisanship of it, in the focus of it, the discipline of it, and what it means: that it is relevant to the lives of the American people. A typical middle-income family, a family of four with two children, will get $1,800. Eighteen hundred dollars. I think that that is impressive. And families making less than that, other families, depending on the number of their children, will get a sizable check in the mail.

This says to them we respect your contribution to our country, to our economy, to our society, and, even if you don't make a lot of money and pay income tax, that your contribution to our economy is recognized and acknowledging the FICA tax that you pay. And that's why once more I will reiterate that 40 million American families will participate in the recovery rebates to the tune of about $28 billion infused into our economy through their hands.

This is a new direction. I urge my colleagues to support it and am proud to be associated with it. And I thank all for their leadership in making it possible this evening.

Madam Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest.

A staff delegation from the U.S. Congress will be selected to visit Germany from May 23 to June 1 of this year. During this 10 day exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag/Bundesrat members, Bundestag and Bundesrat party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies. Participants also will be hosted by a Bundestag member during a district visit.

A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for 10 days July 12-20. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Members of Congress. The U.S. delegation is expected to facilitate these meetings.

The Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and the United States, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States.

Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern to the United States and Germany such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. This year's delegation should be familiar with transatlantic relations within the context of recent world events.

In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag/Bundesrat staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two staffers in their Member's district in July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district.

Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and past participants of the exchange.

Members of the House and Senate who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated.

Applications may be sent to the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, HB-28, the Capitol, by 5 p.m. on Friday, March 14, 2008.

I thank the gentleman for his kind and generous remarks. I especially thank him for his tremendous leadership, because under his leadership we are able today to vote on something that is relevant to the lives of the American people.

I commend Leader Boehner for his leadership as well. It has been a privilege to work in a bipartisan way to help relieve the pain of the American people.

For a long time now, homemakers, homeowners, and hard workers across America have known that there is a problem in our economy. They've had a hard time making ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, with rising costs for gasoline, for groceries, for health care, you name it. American families felt this pain early on, and they knew that our economy was facing perhaps a serious downturn, but a downturn nonetheless.

On December 7, actually, I remember because my seventh grandbaby was born that day, Thomas Vincent, on December 7 we had a meeting, a bipartisan meeting with leaders from the business community, economists, leaders of industry, of labor, the academic community, people representing workers in the diversity of our country, and we talked about what we could do to head off a serious downturn in our economy. We knew from that meeting that it would have to be timely, that we would need to act quickly; that it would have to be targeted, that it would put money in the pockets of hardworking Americans who would immediately spend the money to meet their needs, inject demand into the economy to help create jobs; and it had to be temporary. The tax incentives in the package would have to be such that they would have to be acted upon in this calendar year so that the full impact could be felt for job creation and stimulus to the economy. Previous stimulus packages have not had that. They had a 2-year period of time in which the incentives would work, and therefore they lost impact. Previous stimulus packages did not have a cap on who received the rebate, or the tax cut as Mr. Bachus calls it. And so, therefore, a lot of money went into the hands of people who never really spent it and injected it back into the economy.

But this is timely. We're acting very quickly, not hastily, but quickly and firmly in a disciplined way on a package that has as its one criterion for anything that's in the package, is it stimulus, is it stimulus, and does it meet the test of enabling us to move in a timely fashion, targeted and temporary.

I was pleased that, working with my colleague, Mr. Boehner, and with the administration under the leadership of Secretary Paulson, that we were able to come to terms on how we would proceed. We could only do that because of the extraordinary respect in which Mr. Rangel is held, and Mr. McCrery, and them working cooperatively as they have for a while. We could only include in the package those features that related to the subprime crisis because of the extraordinary reputation of the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, understanding the terms under which we wanted to proceed, and respecting his expertise in those areas and those of Mr. Bachus as well. So, this has been bipartisan in terms of committee, in terms of working together over time, and bipartisan in terms of the leadership working together a short time frame, benefiting from the work that had gone before us.

It's important in this package to have a level of discipline, because one of the features that the economists, business leaders, labor leaders, et cetera, had told us in the course of all these discussions is you don't want to do anything in a stimulus package that will hinder your ability to act in a recovery.

So, it's important that this bill not get overloaded. I have a full agenda of things I would like to have in the package, but we have to contain the price, and in doing so, you have to establish your priorities. And the priority we had was to put $28 billion in the hands of 35 million families who had never received a rebate or a child tax credit before, and to do it quickly. That was our priority. Because if you do, to do that, again, is true stimulus. All the other things, while worthy and important, again, we made a decision, because that's where we could find our common ground. But if we heap too much on top of that package, it will then take us deeply into debt.

And PAYGO is important to us. And while in recession the PAYGO law allows for us to take certain initiatives, you don't want to abuse that by again adding to the deficit for items in the package that are not strictly timely, temporary, targeted or stimulus.

So, I think we have a good product here. It's all a compromise. It's all about decisions and priorities that have to be established. But it also speaks to the fact that we really do, hopefully, we need to work in a bipartisan way, to have a very aggressive initiative for job creation in our country. And we've already laid the framework for that in a bipartisan way. We've had overwhelming votes in this Congress, for example, on SCHIP, expanding health care to many more children in America. Health care needs health-trained professionals at every aspect of the delivery of health care. So, it creates good-paying jobs in America when you expand health care accessibility to Americans.

Education, innovation, all of those are about keeping us competitive, keeping us number one; again, creating good-paying jobs in America so that we prevail in the global marketplace.

And we talk about infrastructure, that we must have a package for rebuilding our roads, our highways, mass transit, taking initiatives for new projects as well, creating good-paying jobs in America. And global warming. We, as a generation and as a Congress, will be judged by posterity as to how we deal with the issue of a global climate crisis. This affords for us a whole new world of job opportunity where we're all on the ground floor, largely, where we go into urban America and our inner cities or we go into rural America and create good-paying green jobs that are new.

It's about being entrepreneurial about this, to thinking in new and different ways about how our decisions have to be seen in the light of ``do they create good-paying jobs in America.''

So, again, while we stand ready to present a stimulus, if need be, we want to, in the long term, not that long term but longer term than a stimulus, create jobs to avoid such a downturn and, in any event, raise the living standard of the American people. And so, whether it's about this rebate and

what it means to these hardworking Americans who are facing rising costs and need help to live paycheck to paycheck, and I'm telling you, that's not just the working poor, that is the middle class in America. This is a middle-class tax rebate bill. We call it the Recovery, Rebate and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act. It targets the middle class and those who aspire to it. And for that same middle class, we must have an ongoing aggressive initiative for job creation so that across the board America's families have the confidence that they need. Because in a downturn, what you need is confidence. You need consumer confidence. You need confidence in the markets. And as Mr. Rangel always tells me, a message of confidence is given to the American people when Members of Congress can work with the administration in a bipartisan way to put the American people first.

So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Mr. Frank, Mr. Rangel, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Bachus, and to my colleagues, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Velazquez, and Charlie Rangel, again, for all their leadership in terms of the territories, which is a very important part of this legislation.

I think it's a good day for us here. And let's hope that the Senate will take its lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on behalf of insuring America's children and also commend the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his leadership on this important subject.

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge your exceptional presiding over this debate. You have presided over most of the debate for SCHIP, if not all. I think you are approaching, depending on what happens in the course of this debate, 100 hours of presiding in a very dignified fashion, and I want to acknowledge that because of the importance of this issue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

All year we have been talking about the subject of how we make America healthier, how we bring many more children who are eligible to be enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We've had the debates. We've had the outside advocacy of the March of Dimes, of Easter Seals, of the AMA, of the AARP, of Families USA, the YWCA, of the Catholic Hospital Association. Almost any organization that you can name that has anything to do with the health of the American people has endorsed the legislation that we have before us. That is important to the children, to their families, to their communities, to the economic stability of their States which have to provide health insurance for these children.

In the last few days, we have all been working together in a bipartisan way to come up with a stimulus package. The recognition that we need a stimulus package points to the need further for this SCHIP legislation to become law. Let's make our working in a bipartisan way on the stimulus package a model for how we approach other issues as well.

This SCHIP package has had strong bipartisan support from the start, in the House and in the Senate. In fact, the Senate has a veto-proof majority. Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley have been major architects of this legislation, two very distinguished Republican leaders in the United States Senate.

The issue comes down to what is happening in America's households today. Unemployment is up; housing starts are down. The price of gasoline and food and health care is up; the stock market is down. So the indicators, some that are felt very closely and intimately by America's families and some that are felt by our economy, all point to the need for us to take a new direction. And that new direction says what can we do that is fiscally sound, that meets the needs of the children, that has bipartisan support, and, again, strengthens our country by improving the health of our people?

One of the things that we can do is, again, take the lead, and many children who have come here to advocate on behalf of all children in our country, whether it was through the March of Dimes or Easter Seals or any other organizations, and that is to vote to override the President's veto. Let's remove all doubt in anyone's mind that this Congress of the United States understands our responsibility to children, understands our responsibility to the future. We've had the debate. We know the facts. We know the figures. It's just a decision that people have to make about what is inside of them about what their priorities are. And I hope the message that would lead this Congress is the message that we care about children and we care enough about them that we will vote to override this veto.

I thank the gentlemen again for their leadership.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to express our sympathy and sadness and recognize the tremendous contribution of Benazir Bhutto to the cause of democracy.

Thank you, Mr. Ackerman and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the full committee; Mr. Lantos and Mr. Pence for their giving this opportunity to us as well and for their strong words and support of democracy in Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto about 15 years ago came to this Chamber of Congress, one of the first women ever to address a joint session of Congress. Only in her thirties, I believe, at the time, she inspired us, she filled us with hope, and the confidence which she projected gave us the confidence that democracy could come to Pakistan. That was a while ago, and much has transpired since then. She has been in and out and in again as Prime Minister. And, as you know, when she returned to Pakistan, it was to participate in an election to take Pakistan back down the path to democracy.

Her return was courageous. Mr. Pence mentioned the word courageous. It was courageous for many reasons. It is important to note that her father and two of her brothers had been assassinated. They were victims of political violence. And, of course, their family was dealt another blow as were the people of Pakistan with the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

She possessed a remarkable optimism about the future, a belief in the power of dialogue, and a strong, strong commitment to democracy. She was an advocate for reconciliation between Islamic and non-Islamic societies, and outlined how that goal could be achieved. She not only had a vision, she had a plan on how it would be done. The strength of her message of hope has underscored how much we lost in her tragic death.

In the days and the weeks that have followed Benazir Bhutto's death, there has been little good news from Pakistan. The Musharraf government continues to deny the Pakistani people a full accounting of the assassination and the events that followed. There must be a strong international investigation of this despicable crime. I acknowledge and recognize that the government has accepted assistance from Scotland Yard and the government of Great Britain. But the government has delayed scheduled parliamentary elections while continuing to jail democratic activists, suppress journalists, and shut out international monitors. The Bush administration must continue to press the Pakistani government to ensure that the coming election is free and fair.

I think it is important to note, my colleagues and Madam Speaker, that the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which were passed by this body and were signed into law last year, condition U.S. assistance to Pakistan on the cooperation of the Pakistani Government with global efforts against terrorism.

Since 2001, Pakistan has received nearly $10 billion in U.S. assistance. The Bush administration has repeatedly certified that our assistance would facilitate Pakistan's transition to democracy. We clearly have not seen enough progress in this area.

Troubling questions have been raised about our assistance to Pakistan, that it has not been properly monitored and that the Pakistani Government may be using it for purposes other than those intended.

Last year, under the leadership of Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Ranking Member Frank Wolf of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, under their leadership, our legislation shifted economic assistance for Pakistan from going directly to the Musharraf government to going directly to the Pakistani people on the ground. Indeed, this was a step forward and a recognition of the concerns that we had about how that aid was being used in Pakistan.

I believe the best way for the United States to honor the legacy of Benazir Bhutto is to renew our engagement directly with the people of Pakistan. We urge the Musharraf government to implement democratic reforms by restoring the Pakistani constitution, ensuring freedom of expression and assembly, guaranteeing free and fair democratic elections, and restoring an independent judiciary.

The opportunity that Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Pence have given us today to give an overwhelming vote in support of this resolution can tell the world that again we have gone on record in support of the democratic hopes of the Pakistani people and to pay tribute to the legacy of Benazir Bhutto.

I know I speak for all Members when I express my condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto, and also to all of the others who lost loved ones in this tragic incidence of violence and assassination in Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for his kind words and for his tremendous leadership.

Because of his leadership and that of 10 other Members, Chairs of our committees of jurisdiction, working in a bipartisan way, we are able to bring earth-shattering change in terms of energy policy to the floor of the House. Here we are today. Here we are today to pass a bill that passed in the Senate 88-6; 88-6, very strong bipartisan support for this legislation.

Today in the House, we have the opportunity to give that same kind of validation and legitimacy to a new direction in energy security for America. It is about our national security. Admiral McGinn, when he spoke recently, said that our dependence on foreign oil presents a clear and present danger to our country. It is a matter of our national economy.

Congresswoman Velazquez, Chair of the Small Business Committee, and Congressman George Miller, with the Green Jobs Initiatives, can show a new way to build a new economy involving many more people and the new technologies that will be unleashed because of this legislation.

It's about protecting our environment. Congressman Rahall, Chairman Rahall and his Natural Resources Committee provided great leadership, as did the Chair of the Government Reform Committee, Mr. Waxman, who has long been a supporter of energy security and energy independence.

The list goes on: Mr. Oberstar, the greening of the Capitol and the Federal buildings across the country and what that will save, and many more initiatives that he has presented.

The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee provided the way to pay for it. That was rejected in the Senate, but we will revisit that issue in a manner that I think will receive strong bipartisan support.

The chairman of our select committee, Mr. Markey, did an excellent job in keeping this issue alive, as he has worked on it for many, many years.

What other Chairs? I'm looking around the room at our Chairs. I'll talk about them as we go along.

Mr. Bart Gordon, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, is really in the forefront. So much of this bill comes out of his committee.

Mr. Speaker, the work that was done by the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, is breaking ground. It's groundbreaking in terms of what it will do in savings to the consumer, what it is doing in terms of protecting the environment, and, again, what it is doing to provide a new direction. And it does so in a way that breaks ground but does not leave it broken. It takes us to a new place, and I thank him for that leadership. It's a tremendous addition to this legislation.

And the United States Senate, two of their major provisions, renewable fuel portfolio, and the CAFE, were leadership issues, and I'm glad that we were able to work out those, reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate, again with the leadership of Mr. Dingell.

I think of us as being in a place where we're looking at the horizon, whether we're on a ship, or wherever we are, looking at a horizon. And this legislation takes us closer to that horizon. But as with all horizons, they keep getting farther away. But they lead us and reaching for it takes us to a whole new world. And that's what this legislation does.

My colleagues in this Chamber, our guests. Am I allowed to address them, Mr. Speaker? You are present at a moment of change, of real change, of rejecting the past, respecting the values of the past, but rejecting the insistence that we stay in the past and go into the future. This is about a choice between yesterday and tomorrow.

And while I would have liked to have had the full package that passed here with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, I salute this bill for what it does do and respect it for that, rather than judge it for what it does not, because we have plenty of time, interest, knowledge, know-how and bipartisanship to move forward to make even more change.

It's, as I said, a national security issue. It's an economic issue, an environmental issue and therefore a health issue. It is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue. It's a moral issue, and that's why we worked closely with the evangelical and faith-based communities, with scientists and faith-based, with business and environmentalists, with our friends in labor who support this legislation, to preserve God's beautiful legacy to us. It is His gift to us, and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it.

We have to think about our consumers every single day. That's who we represent. They are our bosses, and their well-being is our mission, to protect their well-being.

This legislation will save the average driver who goes up to the pump and has the shock that consumers are having, this legislation alone will save the average driver between $700 and $1,000 per year. It adds up to $22 billion in net annual consumer savings in the year 2020.

In order to reduce the price at the pump, the increasing of the fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon is historic. It's the first time in 32 years that this has happened.

So whether we're thinking as consumers and very personally about what this means in the lives of our constituents as they see their energy costs go up at the pump or in heating their homes at this Christmas season, or we're thinking of our national defense and our national economy, this is as personal as each and every one of our consumers. It is as global as the planet, and the opportunity provided to take us to a new horizon, to see a new world, a new era of possibility is here with us today. I hope, as a Christmas present to our constituents and, especially to the children, because it's about their future, that we would have very, very strong bipartisan support for this legislation. In the Senate, as I said, 88-6, a beautiful vote. I hope that we can replicate that in the House.

In any event, this great opportunity for us would not have been possible without the leadership of you, Mr. Chairman, so many of our chairmen, including the gentleman in the Chair, working from the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, and so many others of us.

As I salute our chairmen for the intellect, the institutional memory, the legislative know-how that they brought to this process, I also want to give a special thank you to our freshman class. They came to this Congress to make change. They know how essential protecting our planet is. They know the concerns of their constituents. They're fresh out of the trenches, dealing with them. And without that freshman class, if I may call them freshmen, we would not have had the success that we have had today.

So this has been a collaboration on both sides of the aisle, from our most senior Members to our newest Members of Congress, to invigorate us, to encourage us to make the change that we're making today. I'm absolutely delighted about it. I can't wait until we join with the President of the United States when he signs this legislation into law and takes a step forward into the future.