Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee.

If a gentle breeze were to come into this room and dispel the fog of rhetoric that we've been listening to, we'd understand and return to the basic proposition that's quite simple, and that is, the budget of the United States Congress reflects the priorities of the United States Congress.

And what will be debated and the substance before the House is whether on the Labor-HHS budget we will appropriate and spend 2 percent more than was recommended by the President of the United States. What will be debated and decided by this House of Representatives is whether we will approve and spend 4 percent more for military construction in overdue services to our veterans. It comes to you from Chairs of subcommittees who are operating under the tight restrictions of pay-as- you-go budgeting that has been adopted by this new Congress after it had been abandoned by the previous Congresses.

So what do the American people have to judge us by what we do? It's this: first, we will pay for everything on a pay-as-you-go basis; second, when the President says that we're spending more than he recommended on Labor-HHS and for our veterans, we plead guilty. We're paying for it, but we're doing it because we believe it's overdue and it's right.

Think about the lack of investment that has occurred as a result of the clear priorities of the administration approved by previous Congresses: all Iraq all of the time and impoverishing our domestic programs, even as Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

The Labor-HHS budget does a couple of things that are very straightforward. It makes a fundamental commitment in the National Institutes of Health. It increases LIHEAP funding, Low Income Heating Assistance Program. Is it needed? Oil is at $93 a gallon on a barrel.

And on the veterans budget, this Congress has made a fundamental decision, and it's very simple again. The cost of the war must include the cost of caring for the warrior.

Yes, it's true, this VA budget is the highest increase that we have had in the history of the VA. Why? It's because it is absolutely necessary to meet the obligation we have to the men and women in uniform.

We will have an opportunity to vote yes or no. We will have an opportunity to state explicitly and be judged by the American people as to what our priorities are, and the priorities we have are to begin to renew our commitment to our veterans and to renew our commitment to basic science and investment in the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Congressional Black Caucus on this incredibly

important message hour. I wandered in and we should all be here. This is tremendous.

And, Representative Davis, thanks for your leadership, along with your colleagues in doing this. This is tremendous to listen to you. And you are the conscience of America, let alone the Congress. You are doing a great job.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 781 provides for consideration of H.R. 3920, the Trade Globalization and Assistance Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Finally, the rule makes in order a substitute amendment to be offered by Representative McCrery of Louisiana, or his designee.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying what we all know. Trade can be a very good thing for the economy of this country, and this Congress and this Member of Congress is committed to examining any trade agreement that is brought before this House in two ways: one, whether the terms and provisions will improve the economy of this country; and two, whether there is a capacity to share the benefits that that trade agreement will bring to this economy, across all sectors of it.

And what we have to acknowledge on trade agreements, and really is the underpinning of this legislation brought before the House, is that there is significant dislocation that can occur with trade. There can be winners and there can be losers, and in the adjustment to some of the consequences that have adverse impact on many of our workers across this country, we must have a substantial and vigorous and effective assistance program to help workers who are hurt regain jobs, regain employment, improve their incomes and be part of this economy and be part of the benefits, not just the downside of trade.

I want to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Miller, Congressman Levin and Congressman Smith for their diligence in putting together a very strong adjustment assistance package that we will vote for later today. Among many others, they have been working on this bill for nearly a decade.

Trade adjustment assistance hadn't been started in this country until 1962; even though trade has been a very difficult political issue for this country from its inception, where there were debates about tariffs. And in our days of our history, tariffs were used basically to protect our industries and allow them to get a foothold. And then trade barriers were gradually reduced, and what we're seeing as that happens is an increase in gross domestic product and wealth, but we're also seeing an increase in dislocation among many workers, and some of that is concentrated in many of the old industrial sectors of our country.

This legislation recognizes that impact and is attempting to substantially increase our ability to address the dislocation. That underpinning is essential for the consideration of any future trade packages that will be brought before this House.

The update is long overdue. H.R. 3920 expands trade assistance to the service sector. That was denied under the previous adjustment assistance legislation, even as more and more of our economy has become service-related and even as service sector jobs are being off-shored. So this change in trade adjustment assistance is long overdue and very necessary.

Too often workers are not provided with the training that they need under current training assistance bill. This bill doubles the current training fund cap to $440 million. Beyond expanding coverage to more workers, this TAA improves their training opportunities, as well as the all-important health care benefits.

Many of the folks who have been adversely affected by trade have come from older industries with strong unions where they had substantial and very important health care benefits. This trade adjustment assistance extends them.

It also creates new benefits for industries in communities that have been hardest hit by creating 24 manufacturing redevelopment zones to encourage the redevelopment of communities that have been hit the hardest by manufacturing decline.

What this legislation starts to understand is that one of the responses that we must have strategically to the acceleration of globalization is the intensification of localization. Our economies that have been hardest hit have to rebuild in part from the bottom up using the resources that we have in those communities, keeping dollars in those communities that can be reinvested and then create jobs and wealth in those communities.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been happening over the past generation is a widening gap between the highest and lowest paid among us. According to a 2006 survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal, the case right now is that the average CEO in the United States earns 262 times the pay of the average worker. It means that the CEO earned more in one work day than an average worker earned in the entire year.

And we have to look at this discrepancy because one of the actual facts that has to be recognized, whatever your position on trade, is that there has been this widening gap, and historically, this country has always been its best when we've had economic policies that have shared the wealth that is generated by people working hard in this country.

H.R. 3920 is an important bill for our economic stability and workforce growth. It's also a bill about fairness.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to read one section from the bill to allay the apprehensions about benefits going to illegal aliens: section 226, Restriction of Eligibility For Program Benefits, states very specifically that ``no benefit allowances, training or other employment services may be provided under this chapter to a worker who is an alien, unless the alien is an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.''

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time.

I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, for his kind words and his usual vigorous argument for the point of view represented on his side.

A couple of things. One, this is a good opportunity for the House to have a full and fair debate on the substance of this legislation and on the substitute. We will have that debate, we will have the vote, and we'll see which side prevails. So I am delighted that all Members of the House are going to have a full and fair opportunity to make their case.

Second, before we get to the specific details on what is contained in this trade adjustment assistance, there is really a bottom line that has to be acknowledged and it's this: that the road to prosperity has to be built on a foundation of fairness. What has happened in this country, despite the economic growth of 3.9 percent most recently, the highest gross domestic product in the history of the world, over $13 trillion, is that average, everyday working people are falling farther behind.

We have had the greatest disparity in wealth in this country since the 1920s, and there is a fundamental question that we have to answer, and it's this: Are we going to include all Americans in the benefits of a rising economy, or are we going to pursue policies that allow for the intensification of that widening gap between the very wealthy and everyone else?

Our party has made a commitment to the basic proposition of democratic fairness that requires everyone to have an opportunity to participate in the benefits of a rising and strengthening economy. And that hasn't happened. But what we have done with the legislation we have brought before this House is essentially tried to build that foundation of fairness and provide a new direction on our economic agenda, one that includes all Americans.

Let me just give, Madam Speaker, a few examples. We raised the minimum wage, something that hadn't been done in over 10 years. We had people working harder, making less, many of them paying more in taxes because of the Social Security payroll tax increases than at any time in history. In the average families, they found themselves working two and three jobs in an effort to pay the light bill, in an effort to pay the fuel bill, losing health care.

We increased access to college education by taking a free ride away from the international banks that were literally getting a taxpayer guarantee in subsidized profits and gave that benefit to students so that their student loans were cut in half in the interest rate, from 6.8 to 3.4. We passed the child health care, which extends benefits to working families, basically, to 10 million children throughout this country, something our kids need.

And these are oftentimes the children of the working poor. These are folks working hard. They would rather not have to have any help, but they can't afford health care. We passed prescription drug price negotiation. Instead of giving away guaranteed legislated profits to the drug companies, we, in the House, it's languishing in the other body, required price negotiation so that we can get the benefit of lower prices that we're entitled to because of bulk purchasing.

We passed many provisions that are going to strengthen our small businesses across this country because we know the small business is a job creator. And we stood up to an administration, at a time when our veterans and our soldiers are doing more for this country than in recent memory, by passing the highest increase in the budget for veterans in the history of the Veterans Administration.

The bottom line here is that this Congress, this leadership has made a commitment to a new direction. And the new direction is the old-time values of making certain that workers, average families, and communities that are fully engaged as American citizens participate in the benefits of our economy.

Trade adjustment assistance is one more brick in that foundation of fairness. We can't have trade agreements

that are tilted so that the benefits are not shared and the burdens of dislocation are not shared.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question on the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you. I really think that everything that the gentleman from Tennessee said is right.

The question that I ask myself at times is how is it, if we have been doing a good job and accomplishing the things that you recited, so many of the American people think we are not doing much at all, or we are doing a bad job? That is a sentiment that a lot of folks have. It's in conflict, in my view, with many of the concrete things that we have done here in the House.

I will tell you what I think it is. Back in Vermont, people are asking me, when are we going to the stop the war, and when are we going to change the priorities of this country so that we are standing up for the needs of average, middle-income families and not just the wealthy, not just corporations who can get legislation passed.

They are also asking the question that Mr. Yarmuth has presented in very stark form, when are we going to reassert our own constitutional authority and be willing to stand up to the President? I am hearing from people in my State, really good people, real Democrats, real Republicans, and they are saying even when Congress is right, it seems that they are not willing to stand up to the President.

I think some of the frustration is that on the war there has been no change by the President, despite the efforts of many of us in Congress, and that's a fact.

Number two, there has been some sense that even when we are right here in Congress, we are not willing to hold our ground.

I want to address both of those.

First of all, on the war, the bottom line reality is that the President of the United States has an immense amount of power. We have article I power, but he has executive power. Despite the fact that the people of this country voted across the country from Vermont to Ohio to Pennsylvania to California and chose a new Congress, and a clear message of that election and decision by the people was that we wanted a new direction in Iraq, the President ignored that election.

He then ignored that March vote of the House of Representatives where we put a date certain on ending the war, August of 2008. Think about where we would be and what kind of optimism we would have in this country if that legislation was signed by the President instead of vetoed.

Then the President, of course, dismissed the advice of retired generals who are critical of the war, and, of course, paid no attention whatsoever to the Iraq Study Commission. I have come to the conclusion that the President is not at all going to bend, no matter what, and we have to be willing to fight that battle with him day in and day out.

Second, on the priorities, there is good news. I mean, this House, oftentimes with a bipartisan vote, has shifted the priorities to middle-class needs. The minimum wage was raised. The student loan cost of interest was cut in half. Prescription drugs are going to be negotiated, price negotiations so we can lower the cost, make it more accessible to seniors, less costly to taxpayers.

All of this we did by returning to pay-as-you-go principles, so we are not going to bankrupt future generations. The largest increase in the veterans budget in the history of the country.

All of that is important. It reflects that we are actually walking the walk of trying to change priorities. It's not getting out into the public either because it can't get through the Senate or it gets vetoed by the President.

We are going to be talking, I guess, a little bit about children's health care. But that's an example where it was the right thing we did to insure 10 million kids in this country. The President vetoed it. We made some minor adjustments, not nickel and diming about which kids we take off of health care, passed it again, and we will be sending it back to the President. I think that's the type of thing that we need to do.

But I also do believe that any time this Congress has an opportunity to hold its ground and essentially embrace and accept the responsibility that the Constitution gives this Congress under article I, we have to do it, whether it's on war funding, when we believe we are right, we have to be able to weather the storm; whether it's on budgets that are going to get vetoed when those budgets reflect the bipartisan consensus in this body that they meet the needs of average people, and that they comply with our obligation to pay our bill as we go.

There is good news, but we also have to acknowledge that there is much more fighting to be done, and that it's time for us in the right circumstances to hold our ground, to be willing to weather the storm of criticism that will come from the White House machine and to stand up for that change and direction that I believe the people of this country voted for in November.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First, let me thank Chairwoman Velazquez and her staff and Mr. Chabot and the work that he has done, not just helping me on this amendment but the extraordinary productivity of the Small Business Committee. It has been an oasis of bipartisan cooperation and accomplishment in this legislative session.

I'd also like to thank the cosponsor of this amendment, my colleague from Iowa, Congressman Bruce Braley, a member of the Small Business Committee.

We've heard about the HUBZone program, that it provides assistance to small businesses located in historically underutilized business zones, or HUBZones, through limited competition contracts, sole source awards, or price evaluation preferences in full and open competitions. The Federal Governmentwide contracting goal for HUBZone small businesses is, as you know, Mr. Chairman, 3 percent. It's a very effective program.

Across the country, more than 11,000 firms operate and employ people in distressed areas; 56 of these are located in Vermont. Eligible areas cover more than 7,000 urban census tracts, 900 rural and suburban areas.

Historically, the HUBZone program has encountered some difficulties in rural areas, specifically in the way the program is defined. The current definition limits what SBA can do in looking at large areas versus small, and it makes it tough on rural States, like Vermont and many other rural parts of the Nation.

In Vermont, for example, the entire Northeast Kingdom is a HUBZone, as well as all of Lamoille County. Other than that, only part of Burlington, Rutland and St. Albans are in the program, and this has left out some obviously what would appear to be eligible communities in towns like Springfield, Brattleboro, Bennington, Barre, Bellows Falls, and other parts of Rutland City.

Small businesses critical in Vermont, just like everywhere else, create two out of every three new jobs, produce 39 percent of the gross national product, and is responsible for more than half of the Nation's technological innovation.

My amendment with Mr. Braley is very simple. It would direct the SBA to conduct a study on how the HUBZone program is working to reach rural areas. The study should examine how HUBZone is defined, whether that definition works in rural areas as well as it does in urban and suburban areas. It makes specific recommendations of possible alternatives to better capture eligible or needy communities that so often exist in rural areas. Not only does it call on the administration to review whether needy communities are being left out, it also assesses whether areas within the program comply with the program's original intent.

Mr. Braley and I urge our colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, for his work in bringing H.R. 3056 to the House floor. I have received feedback from Vermont citizens and members of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), both in Vermont and nationwide, strongly urging the repeal of the IRS authority to use private debt collectors. There has been much concern for this practice of using ``private bounty hunters.'' National NTEU employees expressed deep concern for outsourcing of inherently governmental jobs.

In January, 2007, the National Taxpayer Advocate, who is appointed by the Treasury Secretary, sent a strong message to Congress urging repeal of this authority as a burden and cost to taxpayers. Taxpayers have faced overzealous intimidation and abuse by private collectors as well as the loss of privacy and confidential information. The Taxpayer Advocate reported to Congress that ``the money spent on the IRS Private Debt Collection initiative is

an inefficient use of government dollars.'' The National Taxpayer Advocate Service has testified that IRS employees bring in $20 for every dollar IRS spends, whereas private debt collectors bring in only 4.

This bill will reverse these inefficiencies and abuses on the American taxpayer.

I have also heard from other Vermont organizations, including many Builders Associations and other federal, state, and local government contractors, voicing strong support for the delay in implementation of certain tax withholding provisions provided in this bill. H.R. 3056 postpones for one year, until December 31, 2011, the application of a three-percent withholding requirement on the payments of goods and services made by the U.S. Government, States, and local governments. This delay allows the Treasury Secretary the time to study issues associated with the three-percent withholding, including the burdens to small businesses as well as the application of the tax to small expenditures for goods and services by governments.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 741 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend remarks on House Resolution 741.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 741 provides for the consideration of House Resolution 734, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to rampant corruption in Iraq, corruption that is being used with taxpayer money from our country. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Resolution 734 expresses the explicit sense of the House that the State Department, our State Department, has abused its classification authority by withholding from Congress and the American people information about the extent of corruption in the Maliki government. The resolution further condemns the State Department for retroactively classifying documents that had been widely distributed previously as unclassified and by directing State Department employees not to answer questions in an open forum.

Madam Speaker, we are in the fifth year of this war. We have lost over 3,700 of our best young men and women. By the time this war is over, many experts anticipate that the cost to the taxpayers will exceed $1 trillion. General Ricardo Sanchez, a retired commander, last week described the situation in Iraq as an absolute nightmare with no end in sight.

This war started on the basis of bogus information: the threat of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Hard questions that should have been asked weren't asked. The war continued for years, until November of 2006, with a Congress that was a rubber stamp for whatever it was that the executive agencies wanted. Those days are over.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been pursuing relentlessly article I powers of this Congress to accept its responsibility on behalf of the citizens of this country to ask questions and get answers; yet the State Department is refusing to allow relevant information to be disseminated to the members of that committee.

Madam Speaker, let me go through the history. On October 4, 2007, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing regarding the extent of corruption within the Iraqi Government. David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, and Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, testified that entrenched corruption in the Iraqi Government is actually fueling the insurgency, undermining the chances of political reconciliation, which, incidentally, was the whole point of the surge strategy of General Petraeus, and that this corruption is, in fact, endangering our troops.

The former Commissioner of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, testified that his own investigation documented at least $18 billion in money stolen by corrupt officials. He stated that Prime Minister Maliki personally intervened to prevent the investigation from continuing.

Each witness that day provided evidence suggesting that corruption within the Iraqi Government was tantamount to a second insurgency. Specifically, David Walker testified that widespread corruption undermines efforts to develop the government's capacity by robbing it of needed resources, some of which are used to fund the insurgency itself. Similarly, Mr. Bowen testified that corruption in Iraq stymies the construction and maintenance of Iraq's infrastructure, deprives people of goods and services, reduces confidence in public institutions, and publicly aids insurgent groups reportedly funded by graft from oil smuggling or embezzlement.

Judge al-Radhi testified that corruption in Iraq today is rampant across the government, costing tens of billions of dollars, and has infected virtually every agency and ministry, including some of the most powerful in Iraq. He further stated that the Ministry of Oil is effectively financing terrorism.

Madam Speaker, after hearing this testimony, which can only be described as shocking, the Oversight Committee heard from Ambassador Lawrence Butler, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Members of the committee asked the obvious questions, very simple, very straightforward: A, whether the Government of Iraq currently has the political will or the capability to root out corruption within its government; B, whether the Maliki government is working hard to improve the corruption situation so that he can unite his country; C, whether Prime Minister Maliki obstructed any anticorruption investigations in Iraq to protect his political allies. Simple questions; no answers.

Ambassador Butler refused to answer any of these questions at the hearing because on September 25, 2007, 7 business days before this hearing, the State Department instructed officials not to answer questions in open setting that called for, basically, answers. In the jargon of the State Department, you couldn't answer a question that called for ``broad statements or assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability or determination of the Iraqi Government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted or stifled for political reasons.''

It is astonishing; $1 trillion, over 3,700 lives, a war that has no end in sight, that was based on misinformation. Now, with billions of dollars gone missing, no one is disputing this is as a result of corruption, not just bad decisions. The State Department is directing the people who have answers to deny answers to Congress and to the American people.

Madam Speaker, the thrust of this resolution is very simple. It is whether Congress has the right and the will to demand that it get answers on behalf of the American people about this most catastrophic foreign policy blunder.

In addition to preventing officials from answering questions about the corruption in Iraq, the State Department retroactively classified two reports written by the Office of Accountability and Transparency, one of the two primary entities established by the State Department to lead U.S. anticorruption efforts. So we turned the Office of Transparency into the ``Office of Obscurity.''

These reports were initially marked ``sensitive but unclassified,'' and they suddenly, by fiat of the State Department, became ``confidential.'' The State Department also retroactively classified portions of a report that was released and distributed at that October 4 hearing by Comptroller Walker. It addressed the commitment of the Iraqi Government to enforce anticorruption laws.

As a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I and my colleagues witnessed firsthand the State Department's absolute, adamant, willful, and really intransigent refusal to testify about Iraqi corruption. That is why the committee believes so strongly in the support of this resolution.

The resolution states in very simple and plain language what every American, I think, believes they are entitled to. One, it is essential that Congress and the people of the United States know the extent of corruption in Iraq. Two, it was wrong, not right, but wrong, to reclassify documents that are embarrassing but do not meet the criteria for classification. Three, it is an abuse of the classification process to withhold from the American people broad assessments of the extent of corruption within the Iraqi Government. Four, the directive issued by the State Department on September 25, 2007, prohibiting its officials from discussing the state of Iraqi corruption should be, indeed must be, rescinded.

Madam Speaker, corruption within the Iraqi Government is unacceptable. It undermines the efforts of this country; it undermines the efforts of the honest people in Iraq to build a civil society. We have no recourse but to demand from the State Department that they tell us the facts and not withhold them because they are embarrassing and don't serve what has been a self-serving and misguided policy since its inception.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Massachusetts, I would like to just comment on a few of the observations and statements made by my friend from California.

First of all, I agree with him that Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis have worked cooperatively and extremely well. And, in fact, there was an effort to maintain that tradition here when Chairman Waxman last Wednesday delivered a copy of the text of this resolution to the minority with specific heads-up that this resolution was going to be introduced on Friday and with the request that comments or edits be provided in a timely way so that the introduction could occur on that day.

The edits were not presented until Monday, just before the Rules Committee meeting. So the good news here is that that cooperative approach continued. Mr. Waxman, in his usual gentlemanly and collegial way, made apparent what his intentions were, provided the language and opportunity for response, and it was not forthcoming. So that's the story.

The gentleman from California will have an opportunity to respond on his own time, so I won't yield at this time.

Secondly, the premise that on a matter of enormous public importance where it is our lives, it is our money that is imperiled, that is being wasted, that Members of Congress could sacrifice their capacity to be a representative of the people that we represent by accepting a classified briefing on something that is profoundly public in nature is flat out rejected by the committee and by most Members of this Congress.

When we are asked to go get a private briefing up in the Intelligence SCIF with a requirement that we sign an oath that we can't reveal anything that we learned, it means that the State Department has succeeded in its goal of keeping secret information that should be made public. So that is not simply an option that makes any sense if we are going to move ahead.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from California if he has any remaining speakers. I'm the last speaker on this side. So I reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time.

That's correct.

Madam Speaker, our Chair has arrived and has requested 30 seconds. Notwithstanding my previous statement that I was the last speaker, I am inquiring if my friend from California has any objection.

The distinguished Chair has requested an additional 30 seconds, and I would yield 30 seconds to my colleague.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair for joining us. I thank my friend from California for cooperating in this debate and giving his usual vigorous presentation of his side's point of view. I want to address a couple of things that came up.

One, my friend from California said basically that this is a resolution attempting to appease the Out of Iraq Caucus. And he used the word ``appease.''

It is not about that. But I will confess that I am a person who is strongly opposed to this war, believe it was the wrong decision, it was based on false information, and it is the single most terrible foreign policy blunder that our country has embarked upon. But this resolution has nothing to do with that profound question.

What this is about is not who favors corruption. Nobody favors corruption. But it is about who tolerates secrecy. If we tolerate secrecy while we criticize corruption, don't we, in fact, condone the corruption to which we avert our eyes?

How will we talk about the facts? How can we talk about the facts which my distinguished colleague from California says he wants to talk about when the State Department denies us the facts?

If we are going to root out corruption in Iraq, don't we have to destroy the wall of self-serving State Department secrecy here in our own government?

It has been said on the other side that corruption is everywhere. Human nature. No argument there. But if corruption exists elsewhere and it is their money and their future, that is one thing. If corruption exists in Iraq with our hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and our soldiers and their lives, then it is our problem. And we not only have a right, we have a responsibility, Madam Speaker, to do every single thing we can to get to the bottom of it and to stop it.

It was also said that in Iraq it is just another government with some corruption. We owe it not just to our own citizens, our own soldiers; we owe it to our allies and our friends in Iraq to do everything we can to help those good people who are there standing up to fight corruption back here. They need our help.

Let me just tell you some of the testimony that Judge Radhi presented to us about the incredible peril that folks in Iraq are subjected to when they try to fight for an honest government. Judge Radhi held that position for 3 years, until he finally resigned amid repeated death threats to himself, his family, and his staff.

He testified in our committee that 31 of his employees had been killed, not injured, killed, as well as at least 12 of their family members. Judge Radhi's home was attacked by rockets, by a sniper's bullet barely missing him as he stood outside his office. He testified about how one staff member was gunned down with a 7-month pregnant wife. He testified about how the father of a security chief was kidnapped and then literally found hung on a meat hook. He testified about how another staff member's father was killed; and when his dead body was found, a power drill had been used to drill his body with holes.

These are officials who are fighting corruption in Iraq, and they are being gunned down, they are being assassinated, they are being tortured; and we are supposed to be standing idly by.

When we ask questions of the State Department what is going on and they take a document that yesterday was unclassified and today make it classified, that is not acceptable. The State Department anticorruption efforts have been a mess. And basically what the State Department is doing is just enough so that they can claim they are trying to do something about corruption; but basically it is status quo, as it has been since the day this war began.

We have to make a decision as Members of Congress that is very simple: we are real, we are serious, or we aren't. And it is about tolerating secrecy, depriving us and the American people of information that we are entitled to, that we must have in order to do our job; or it is turning a blind eye to those folks in Iraq who are standing up on our side and finding their bodies of loved ones drilled with holes and hung on meat hooks. It is not acceptable. The American people know it is not acceptable.

We may have an administration that disregarded the vote of the American people in November when they said they wanted a new direction in Iraq. We may have an administration that disregarded the recommendations of an eminent bipartisan group in the Iraq Study Commission. And we may have an administration that has dismissed and disregarded votes in this House and the Senate, making it clear that we want a new direction even as we struggle to find what that is. But we cannot, any of us on either side of the aisle, accept being an enfeebled Congress that isn't entitled to get the information that our Congress needs to do its job. It is that simple.

And that is what this resolution is about. That is what the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is about. That is what Chairman Waxman is standing up to assert and defend, and that is our constitutional responsibility. Not just prerogative, but constitutional responsibility to do what is required to defend our Constitution, to protect our soldiers, to stand up for our taxpayers, and to restore democratic tradition in this country.

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

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

I thank the distinguished Chair and the good work of my friend from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Resolution 742, the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act.

This important legislation protects the public's right to know while at the same time honoring the public interest in having reporters testify in certain circumstances. While news organizations prefer to have their sources on the record whenever that is possible,

we all know there are times when sources will simply not come forward without the promise of confidentiality, and that's in the public interest to get the information those sources have. Consider groundbreaking stories such as conditions at Walter Reed, Abu Ghraib, the Enron scandal, steroid abuse in the Major Leagues would not have been known to the public or the Congress without confidential sources. And over the past few years, more than 40 reporters and media organizations have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources, their notes, and their work product in criminal and civil cases in Federal court.

The need for this legislation was underscored when on August 13 a Federal judge ordered five more reporters from major news organizations to reveal their confidential sources in the privacy lawsuit filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against the Federal Government.

If sources, including public and private sector whistleblowers, are uncertain whether reporters have adequate protection, they won't come forward in the public dialogue and important issues will diminish.

The shield is qualified, as it must be. If the information possessed by the journalist is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism, imminent death or significant bodily injury, or harm to national security, disclosure can be compelled.

While 49 States and the District of Columbia recognize a reporter's privilege through statute or common law, no uniform Federal standard exists to govern when testimony can be sought from reporters. Journalists should be the last resort, not the first stop, for civil litigants and prosecutors attempting to obtain the identity of confidential sources.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 742 and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Frank and his Committee staff, particularly Scott Olson, for working with me on this important bill to reach a compromise on issues in the bill affecting small states.

The legislation as a whole creates a national housing trust fund for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of an estimated 1.5 million units of affordable housing for low-income families. Along with food, health care, and energy costs, affordable housing can make all the difference in economic survival.

In Vermont, we have a great need for affordable housing. While so many low- and moderate-income households aspire to own their own home, limited supply, rising costs, and other barriers can make this dream out of reach. Beginning in 2005, the new construction of 12,321 owner- occupied homes in Vermont was needed to meet the total demand expected in 2010.

Creating a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund is the brainchild of my predecessor in the House, Bernie Sanders, and I thank him for getting the ball rolling.

I am grateful to Chairman Frank for including two items I recommended into the manager's amendment. The first provision will ensure that each State receive at least one half of one percent of funding. For a State agency, there really is a funding level below which it's incredibly inefficient to administer a Federal program. There are always numerous Federal requirements resulting in a tremendous amount of work to comply. In addition, it's hard to raise the expectations of those who would potentially benefit from the program and then have very little money to deliver.

Furthermore, numerous social programs, including the HOME program to which this trust fund is similar, include small state minimums. For programs that are targeted at a need that is universal, it is a pretty rational argument that a mechanism should be in place to ensure that a portion of funding gets distributed

nationwide. In this case, for something like housing, it is a nationwide issue so the appropriations of Congress should be a nationwide effort.

The second provision in the manager's amendment says that within the participating local jurisdictions pool of funding, that each State has at least one local jurisdiction receiving funding. Currently in the bill, for a local jurisdiction set to receive less than $750,000, that amount is reduced to zero. Without this guarantee, many small cities and small States risk receiving no funding under this section of the bill.

I thank the Chairman for his excellent work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet the week of October 15 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the

Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 4 p.m. on Friday, October 12. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. A copy of the bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee.

Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership. I thank the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Holmes Norton, and I thank Mr. Graves for his good work.

Mr. Speaker, this commission is going to be very helpful to Vermont. We have in the northern tier of Vermont six counties, Caledonia, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Franklin, Orleans and Essex. It is among the most beautiful parts of Vermont. It has among the most industrious people in Vermont. But it has the highest unemployment rate and the lowest wages, about $10,000 below the national median. We want economic development in our northern counties. This legislation is going to give that impetus that is going to allow our regional economic commissions that have been providing excellent leadership but on threadbare resources the opportunity to use local decisionmaking, local ingenuity and local people committed to a prosperous economy in that region to get a leg up.

What is tremendous about this legislation, modeled after its predecessors, is that it is a bottom-up approach. So if we have a proposal from folks in Caledonia County that broadband penetration is going to be what they need, or if we have folks in Franklin County who are going to do an agriculture-to-energy-related project, or something with dairy and that is what they need, they are going to have the opportunity for that to become a reality.

This is a situation where we actually have bottom-up leadership integrated into this legislation where the Federal Government here in Washington is going to be a partner, not an impediment, to the goals, the aspirations, and the accomplishments of people back home. This bill is really about hope for the future. It is about confidence that local people in those counties in Vermont can make the best decision for themselves, and it is about Congress finally working as a partner with our local communities and local leadership.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Congress passed legislation, of course, to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. It's a bipartisan bill, provides health coverage to 10 million low-income Americans. It's fully paid for, no change in eligibility requirements. And the President says he's going to veto it because it's going to lead to ``socialized medicine.''

We've had children who have received access to doctors for years. Many States have done it on their own. The Federal Government has supported it with the children's health care initiative. And what's happened? Children have been able to see a doctor. Parents have gone to bed at night with the confidence that if their child was sick they'd have access to health care.

It is bipartisan. Republican Senator Susan Collins said, ``I can't believe the President would veto a program that benefits low-income children.''

Charles Grassley: ``The President's understanding of our bill is wrong. I urge him to reconsider.''

Senator Hatch: ``We're talking about kids who basically don't have coverage.''

No justification for this veto, Mr. President. Change your mind.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in celebration of the 90th birthday of a truly remarkable Vermonter, Antonio ``Tony'' Pomerleau.

When Tony was 3 years old, he fell down a flight of stairs, injuring himself so seriously that he was forced to wear an iron corset and doctors said he wouldn't make it past his 12th birthday. Clearly, Tony saw things differently, and today, on his 90th birthday, we express our deep appreciation for all that he has given to our state.

As an entrepreneur, police chief, philanthropist, and community leader, from his service as a trustee at St. Michael's College to his annual Christmas dinner party for underprivileged children, Tony has positively influenced the lives of thousands of Vermonters.

Tony's entrepreneurial spirit shone through at an early age when he would sell haircuts, wash cars, and help in his family's store. In 1942, he bought a failing grocery store. Three years later, he had not only turned that grocery store around, he owned three more stores and a wholesale beverage business.

In 1951, he entered real estate. He built the Ethan Allen Shopping Plaza, the first shopping center in Vermont. Today, ``Pomerleau Real Estate'' is a household name across Vermont.

But Tony's skill in business is more than matched by his generosity of spirit. Tony is perhaps most well known for his annual Christmas dinners which he started in 1982. In 2004, he expanded the tradition, hosting a party for the families of Vermont Guardsmen and women deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, he served for many years as a trustee at St. Michael's College, has endowed scholarships at Rice Memorial High School, and been a leading supporter of the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the United Way of Chittenden County.

As the Burlington Free Press, our state's largest newspaper, said it so well in naming Tony the 2006 Vermonter of the Year, ``Everyone has a seat at Tony Pomerleau's table.''

Thank you Tony, for all that you do to make Vermont such a wonderful place, and congratulations on a very special birthday.

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank and the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, for their hard work in preparing H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. I have received positive feedback from the Regional Planning Commissioners and emergency managers in support of this bill. The Planning Commissioners and emergency managers serve on the front-line of declared disasters and work with both towns and FEMA. In fact, Vermont has recently dealt with several significant flooding events and this legislation will go a long I way to improving our response in the aftermath. This bill also provides much needed reform of the National Flood Insurance Program,

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee, for his two very thoughtful amendments to H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act and for allowing me to cosponsor them.

The first amendment will help small businesses increase their energy efficiency and implement sustainable practices. The second amendment would direct the Small Business Administration, SBA, to reward small businesses that are reducing their carbon footprint.

Earlier this year, I offered an amendment, which the House passed, to set a 5 percent procurement goal for the Federal Government to contract with green small businesses.

It is critical that small businesses be encouraged to operate and to develop and supply products and services in an environmentally sound way.

Many small businesses are already incorporating sustainable practices into their own business, such as conserving energy and water, using sustainable products, or minimizing generation of waste and the release of pollutants. They strive to make products from recycled materials. They use energy from renewable resources such as bio-fuels, solar and wind power. Or they transport goods and services in alternate fuel vehicles.

We all have a responsibility to protect our environment. As populations expand and lifestyles change, we must keep the planet in good condition so that future generations will have the same natural resources that we have and enjoy now. The Earth faces many threats ranging from pollution to acid rain to global warming to the destruction of rainforests and other wild habitats to the decline and extinction of thousands of species of animals and plants. Combating these threats is essential to ensuring that future generations can live healthy lives.

Our small businesses embrace our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit. The Federal Government can and should serve as a model to the private sector and the rest of the world. As a Congress, we should reward businesses that are striving to be environmentally responsible.

Both of these amendments would greatly improve the bill before us and I ask that they be adopted by the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.