Floor Statements

Thank you. I appreciate you yielding time, and appreciate you bringing to the attention of the American public the need for continued support for those who are unemployed. The current economic climate has taken a toll on many families across the Nation. While the economy may be growing, there are still almost 14 million unemployed people nationally, and the unemployment rate is hovering at 9 percent. We need to take serious steps to address this crisis and create policies that create jobs.

From a long-term perspective, we need to be investing in our workforce by investing in education, in job training, beginning with early childhood education, and continuing through college and vocational education, as well as adult education and training. Unfortunately, the Republican budget makes huge cuts in our Nation's education system by cutting investments in education by over 50 percent and zeroing out many job-training investments. These cuts include services such as elementary and secondary education, educational innovation, career and technical education, cuts to community colleges, and postsecondary education. The budget also cuts the maximum Pell Grant, a vital program that makes college affordable for young students, and takes away eligibility for over a million students.

So we should be trying to work to get people back to work and increase innovation. So we ought to be actually spending more, not less. But with these cuts, fewer people will have access to education and training that they need to fuel the economic productivity and compete for the good jobs that are occurring in our labor market today.

So on a long-term basis, we need to ensure that we are building a strong and capable workforce. In the short term, we need to make sure that people who have lost their jobs during the recession are not left out in the cold. Currently, for every one job opening there are over four people applying. This means that whatever the job applicants do to help themselves, there will still be many people left out in the cold.

To add insult to injury, many applicants are not getting consideration for jobs because they have been unemployed for too long. Many employers will screen applicants and require that they are holding a job to be considered for a new job. When they find out that they are unemployed, many employers will not consider them for employment. So those who are looking for a job and have been looking for a job for a long time find that it's even harder to find a job. And these are the people that have been unemployed for 60, 90, or even 99 weeks. They are dejected, and being cut off from unemployment insurance, and not given a fair shot at a job that they are applying for.

Our focus should be particularly on what to do about the long-term unemployed and keeping them on their feet. In February, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California and I introduced the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act to provide 14 additional weeks of unemployment compensation for the chronically unemployed so that they can stay afloat during their job search, at least until our recession is over and jobs have returned. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act would, if passed, give these hardworking Americans a little more time to find a job without having to worry about making ends meet.

Now, we have to note that receipt of unemployment compensation is conditioned first on the fact that you lost your job through no fault of your own and that you are actively looking for a job and will accept a reasonable job. So these are conditions of receiving unemployment compensation. Unfortunately, this compassionate bill has been stalled in committee, and the majority of the House has not taken action on it.

To make matters worse, just a few weeks ago a new bill had been introduced in the House, which will actually weaken the unemployment compensation program. They call it the Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act. They call it the JOBS Act.

It would allow States to divert the Federal funds it received to pay for unemployment compensation to other purposes, including tax cuts. Jobs, that so-called JOBS Act, will essentially allow States to terminate payments of unemployment benefits, potentially eliminating $40 billion in economic activity, according to CBO estimates. So not only are they failing to extend benefits during a time of constant high unemployment; some now want to cut off benefits all together.

Critics of the unemployment compensation believe that providing unemployment benefits will give people an incentive not to work, that people receiving unemployment compensation will merely collect the benefits as long as they can without looking for a job. But a condition of receiving the benefits, one of the conditions is you have to be actively looking for a job.

While that criticism may apply to a few bad apples, the overwhelming majority of Americans who are chronically unemployed would rather enjoy the dignity of work instead of collecting a weekly check from the government; many of these checks, on a national average, will average $260 a

week, clearly not enough for a family to survive. The overwhelming majority of chronically unemployed do not want a handout; they would like a job.

While unemployment compensation helps the unemployed, unemployment benefits also help the economy. Economists estimate that in the U.S. economy, the U.S. economy grows by $1.61 for every dollar the government spends on unemployment compensation, because unemployed people will obviously spend every dime right away. This is in stark contrast to the economic activity generated by tax cuts, where many of the tax cuts will generate about 17 cents of economic activity for every dollar of tax cuts. This is the $1.61 for every dollar in unemployment compensation.

So, simply put, the unemployment compensation is one of the most effective and efficient ways to stimulate the economy, and we should be focusing on providing the kind of support and stimulus to the economy in conjunction with making bold investments in our education system and our workforce. We need to make sure that we make those long-term investments in education and job training. We also need to make sure that we have a compassionate short-term solution by providing the safety net for millions of Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and haven't found a job yet.

These jobs just don't exist, and we also have to oppose the elimination of unemployment compensation by redirecting those funds to whatever the States may want, including tax cuts. That is simply wrong.

So I thank you for pointing out the need for the unemployment compensation program to continue and even be improved and oppose those initiatives that want to sabotage the unemployment compensation system.

Would the gentlewoman yield before she goes on to the next issue?

It's so important that you have mentioned summer jobs and opportunities they get to help get young people on the right track and keep them on the right track, get them used to a working environment and get them set for their future lives. But also, with so many people unemployed today in the construction area and at a time when we have trillions of dollars and needs in terms of roads and bridges and tunnels and other infrastructure projects, this is a time where we really ought to be investing in those for our future.

Those projects would be coming in, and the bids on those projects would be at the lowest they have been historically so that, as you pay for them over the course of time with bonds, you will be paying at a much lower rate, and those needs are certainly there today. So we need to make those investments in job creation in terms of roads and bridges and other infrastructure. It's a great time to do it, and the people need those jobs.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.

This amendment would prohibit offshore lease sales from going forward if those leases would interfere or impede the operations of the United States Armed Forces.

I represent the Hampton Roads region of Virginia, which is home to the world's largest Naval Base at Norfolk. Our Navy trains extensively off the coast of my state in the Virginia Capes Operations Area. A significant section of a proposed lease sale for drilling off Virginia's coast is within this important military training zone.

There are nearly 30 coastal naval installations in the United States and the Defense Department has expressed concerns that offshore oil and gas development could hinder the military's ability to train in many of these offshore areas.

I have long had reservations about drilling off the coast of Virginia. I believe the environmental, economic and national security risks for drilling off the coast of Virginia far outweigh any benefits. This amendment would simply ensure that offshore oil and gas development will not disrupt these vital functions to our national defense.

I urge my colleagues to support the Connolly Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

This amendment will ensure that necessary safeguards are in place to protect military training operations, NASA missions, and port access in certain offshore areas.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States Navy trains extensively in the Virginia Capes Operations Area off the coast of Virginia. Additionally, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore requires a clear and unrestricted rocket and target launch range off Virginia's coast.

I have long had reservations about drilling off the coast of Virginia. I believe the environmental, economic, and national security risks for that drilling far outweigh any potential benefits. But if drilling will occur, this amendment will ensure that commonsense and responsible processes will be in place to safeguard against obvious negative consequences to our military, to NASA, and to port operations.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, the Congressional Black Caucus has a long history of submitting fiscally responsible budget alternatives regardless of who may be sitting in the White House or which party holds the majority in Congress.

This year's budget alternative continues this long tradition by putting forth a plan that significantly reduces our deficit over the next decade while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of our society.

Unlike the Republican budget, the CBC budget brings the deficit to 1.4 percent of GDP by 2015, better than so-called primary balance, which was the goal of the President's fiscal commission, and achieves primary balance even earlier than the commission, itself. While I commend the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee for proposing a budget that reduces our long-term debt, he only achieves this by shifting medical costs to lower-income Americans and seniors.

The CBC budget is much more responsible. Our budget makes tough choices. But unlike the Republican budget, it doesn't jeopardize Social Security, undermine Medicaid by turning it into a block grant, or shift Medicare costs to seniors by creating a voucher program that doesn't keep pace with medical inflation. Our budget protects these vital programs, and compared to the Republican budget, it has $1.3 trillion more in deficit reduction over the next decade.

The CBC budget proposes responsible revenue increases by closing corporate loopholes and preferences, deterring aggressive stock speculation, which helped contribute to the 2008 financial crisis, and ensuring that the wealthiest Americans who benefited most from the tax cuts and bailouts in the last decades pay their fair share.

Now, with the additional revenues and assuming some of the cuts proposed in the President's budget, the CBC budget uses 80 percent of the additional revenue for deficit reduction, and then invests the rest to protect from making the cuts in our safety net programs, like WIC or Community Health Centers, avoiding cuts in investments in our future like Head Start, Pell Grants, high-speed rail, and NASA, reducing cuts in critical functions like clean water, FBI agents and food inspections, and has more for national defense, homeland security and our veterans. Our budget also fully funds an additional 14 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted their benefits, often referred to as the 99ers.

Now, Madam Chair, the CBC budget protects our social safety net. It invests in our future. It maintains essential services in national security. It does all of this and has more deficit reduction than the underlying Republican budget. So we have a choice. We can have lower deficits and a better future, or we can have tax cuts for multi- millionaires and oil companies.

I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and support the Cleaver amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Every Student Counts Act,'' legislation that will prioritize high school graduation for all of our nation's students.

In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed with broad bipartisan support. The purpose of NCLB was to ensure that every student in America would receive a quality education. However, over the past ten years, NCLB has not lived up to its promises. Certain aspects of the law are difficult to implement and are not bringing about the results we thought it would. One of the major shortcomings of NCLB is its failure to hold schools accountable for dropouts. Although we believed we addressed this issue in the original NCLB legislation, this portion of the law has not been implemented as we had hoped. Instead, under current law, the only meaningful accountability standard for high schools is students' scores on standardized tests, with virtually no concern given to how many students graduate or drop out of school. Unfortunately, this myopic accountability standard has created an incentive for high schools to push out students who are struggling academically, so that their test scores are not counted in the assessments. Furthermore, the current accountability system also has allowed States to report graduation rates inconsistently and in misleading ways. Finally, NCLB does not require the disaggregation of graduation rates by subgroup, leading to incomplete data on how our schools are doing with one subgroup compared to others.

What is clear is the fact that the current high school accountability system is failing both our students and our nation. Each year, approximately 1.23 million secondary school students--one-third of all secondary school students--fail to graduate with their peers. In addition, nearly 2,000 secondary schools--roughly 12 percent of all secondary schools in the United States--produce about half of the nation's secondary school dropouts. In these schools, the number of seniors is routinely 60 percent or less than the number of freshmen three years earlier. Moreover, almost half of the nation's African- American students and nearly 40 percent of Latino students attend these so called ``dropout factories,'' while only 11 percent of White students do.

Unfortunately, these dismal numbers are just the beginning of the story. Research shows that the difference in lifetime earnings between a high school dropout and a high school graduate is about $260,000. A dropout's loss in potential earnings can cause serious hardships throughout his or her life. For example, statistics show that high school dropouts are more likely to be on public assistance programs such as welfare than students who complete high school. In addition, high school dropouts that do find employment are much more likely to work at unskilled jobs that offer little opportunity for upward mobility. There is also a strong correlation between high school dropouts and juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy. Therefore, we cannot sit back and allow this problem to escalate. We must hold

schools, districts and states accountable for graduation rates and dropouts so that all students are graduating with a high school diploma and improving their life outcomes.

By holding schools, districts and states accountable for graduation rates and dropouts, we also improve America's position as a leader in the global economy. According to the 2008 Department of Labor report entitled ``America's Dynamic Workforce,'' by 2016 almost 90 percent of the fastest growing and best paying jobs in the United States will require at least some postsecondary education. Yet, an estimated 3.5 million Americans ages 16 to 25 are not enrolled in school and do not have a high school diploma. Attaining a high school diploma is a student's first step toward becoming an educated member of the American workforce. An American workforce that lacks a considerable number of high school graduates--and a considerable number of college graduates-- will eventually diminish our nation's global competitiveness. The major advantage America has in the global economy is an educated workforce. We can't allow--or afford--any of our nation's high students to dropout and not reach their full potential.

Until recently, federal policy did not place enough importance on graduating the nation's high school students. In October 2008, the U.S. Department of Education released regulations that did much to correct the lack of attention to graduation rates in the federal accountability system; the regulations require a uniform graduation rate calculation and improvement in graduation rates over time. Though these regulations are a laudable step in the right direction, they do not go far enough in setting consistent, high graduation rate goals and aggressive, attainable graduation rate growth targets. Without clear guidance and meaningful accountability, most secondary schools can continue to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by making negligible annual improvement in graduation rates and can do so with a consistent, or even growing, graduation gap. In fact, under current law even a so called ``dropout factory'' can make AYP.

The Every Student Counts Act will bring meaningful accountability to America's high schools by requiring a consistent and accurate calculation of graduation rates across all fifty states to ensure comparability and transparency. The legislation builds on the National Governors Association's Graduation Rate Compact, which was signed by all 50 of the nation's governors in 2005. Under the Every Student Counts Act, graduation rates become a significant factor in determining AYP in addition to test scores. Moreover, the Every Student Counts Act would require high schools to have aggressive, attainable and uniform annual growth requirements as part of AYP. This will ensure consistent increases to graduation rates for all students by meeting annual, research-based benchmarks with the long-term goal of reaching a 90 percent graduation rate. The bill would also require the disaggregation of graduation data by subgroup to make certain that schools are held accountable for increasing the graduation rate for all of our students and require that school improvement activities focus on closing any achievement gaps.

Recognizing that some small numbers of students take longer than four years to graduate, the bill will give credit to schools, school districts and states for graduating these students while maintaining the primacy of graduating the great preponderance of all students in four years. The Every Student Counts Act will provide incentives for schools, districts and states to create programs to serve students who have already dropped out and are over-age or under credited. Some credit has to be given to those who get a GED and also those who take more than one or two years and maybe even three years longer than others to graduate. If no credit is given, the school system has no incentive to continue these important programs.

Some states have already taken the initiative to implement reforms similar to those included in the Every Student Counts Act. I am proud to say that my home state of Virginia is one of them. For example, since 2008 Virginia has been using the ``Virginia On-Time Graduation Rate'' calculation, a flexible graduation rate calculation that accurately measures the number of students from a freshman class who graduate four years later. In addition, Virginia will start using a ``Graduation and Completion Index'' in addition to standardized test scores in order to determine the accreditation ratings of high schools in the Commonwealth. High schools must earn a score of 85 on the ``Graduation and Completion Index'' to receive full accreditation from the state. The requirement will go into effect during the 2011-2012 school year. Reforms like these have had and will have a positive impact on Virginia's graduation rate and should be implemented nationwide.

Thus far, 24 national and state organizations support the Every Student Counts Act, including the Alliance for Excellent Education, America's Promise Alliance, American Association of University Women, American School Counselor Association, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Council of Administrators of Special Education, First Focus, Knowledge Alliance, Learning Disabilities Association of America, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, National Collaboration for Youth, National Council of La Raza, National Council for Learning Disabilities, National Indian Education Association, National PTA, Project GRAD, Public Education Network, School Social Work Association of America, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, United Way Worldwide, and Youth Service America. This list is expected to grow.

In order to truly ensure that all children have access to a quality education, it is imperative that we take steps to immediately end America's dropout crisis. We must ensure not only that graduation rates increase, but that earning a high school diploma is a meaningful accomplishment. We must use the indicators of student achievement and graduation to know which high schools are doing their job. Those who are must be recognized and supported. Those that are not must be identified and improvements made.

I hope that with the Every Student Counts Act we can make greater strides nationally toward graduating more of America's students and preparing them to succeed in college, the workforce, the military, and ultimately in life. I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this bill and seeing to it that it is quickly enacted into law to ensure--at a minimum--that every child becomes a high school graduate.

Mr. Speaker, they have done it again! I rise today to once again congratulate the Boys Basketball Team of I.C. Norcom High School in Portsmouth, Virginia, on winning the Virginia High School League Group AAA State Basketball Championship.

On Friday March 11, before a sellout crowd at Virginia Commonwealth University's Siegel Center, the Greyhounds of I.C. Norcom beat L.C. Bird of Chesterfield 54-45 to win their second consecutive State Basketball Championship. They are the first consecutive year champions since 2004, and have brought the second State Basketball Championship to the city of Portsmouth.

Not content to rest on the accomplishments of last year, Coach Leon Goolsby pushed the Greyhounds to even greater heights this year. The team's 30-1 record this year, the best in school history, improved on last year's 25-4 record. This year's team was able to win four titles (Eastern District Regular Season Champions, Eastern District Tournament Champions, Eastern Region Champions, and State Champions) while last year's team only captured three of these four. Under the tutelage of Coach Goolsby, the Greyhounds have grown and matured into being one of the top three Boys' Basketball teams in the Nation in multiple national polls.

Perhaps more impressive than the number of I.C. Norcom's wins is the way in which they won their games. The Greyhounds have consistently rallied from behind beating opponents who thought they had their games won. I can say from first-hand experience that this persevering ethic makes their games even more exciting to watch. I had the opportunity to see I.C. Norcom play in both the State Tournament Semi-final game against Highland Springs, and the Championship against L.C. Bird, and in both games, the team trailed at the half. But like clockwork, the Greyhounds, with a smothering defense and deft offense came back in the second half of both games to win by a comfortable margin.

These consecutive state championships will be the newest milestones in the long and storied history of I.C. Norcom High School. It was founded in 1913 as the High Street School, the first public high school for black students in Portsmouth. I.C. Norcom was renamed in 1953 in honor of its first supervising principal Israel Charles Norcom, a pioneering educator, civic leader and businessman. Now, more than fifty years and three locations later, I.C. Norcom High School is still an innovating and inspiring place for Portsmouth students.

I.C. Norcom is doing a great job cultivating excellence both on and off the athletic field. In addition to excelling on the basketball court, the Greyhounds are also doing great things in the classroom. I.C. Norcom houses a Center of Excellence in Math and Science, which provides students with additional classes in science, math, and technology.

Once again, I would like to extend my congratulations to the I.C. Norcom players and their families, Principal Lynn Briley, Coach Leon Goolsby and the rest of his coaching staff. On behalf of the people of the Third Congressional District of Virginia, I.C. Norcom alumni, and the entire City of Portsmouth, I say job well done on a second consecutive championship, and I wish the program years of success in the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule because it includes a manager's amendment with problematic provisions.

The manager's amendment will prevent the disclosure and use of safety data. It provides immunity to all persons and organizations involved in the implementation of a safety management system, and it provides total immunity for volunteer pilots, volunteer pilot organizations and referring agencies.

By preventing the disclosure of safety information, the manager's amendment severely hinders the ability of people injured by the negligence of the aviation industry, or their surviving family members, from obtaining crucial information that they need in a court of law to determine whether or not their loss was due to the industry's negligence. Essentially, it allows the negligent airline companies and their employees to hide and to keep evidence of their negligence secret.

Additionally, by granting immunity to any ``person that is required to implement a safety management system'' and for volunteer pilots and pilot organizations, the manager's amendment would potentially provide immunity to the entire aviation industry. This immunity provision is so broad that it would protect individuals who negligently fail to follow a safety standard even if that failure led to massive passenger deaths.

Madam Speaker, this is outrageous, and it essentially asks the airline passengers to put their lives in the hands of aviation teams which could possibly have no liability for any negligence that occurs during a flight. This is unnecessary because we already have in law the Volunteer Protection Act, which provides immunity only for volunteers. This amendment will interrupt the careful balance achieved through that act by giving volunteer organizations and others immunity as well.

The airline industry is free to purchase liability insurance to ensure that people are protected from the negligent acts of its employees. This amendment exempts the industry from having the responsibility for the safety of the public and its employees, and it is certainly not in the best interests of the flying public.

This rule should be defeated so that that amendment cannot be offered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, our public schools need more resources, not less. This bill diverts funds that could be used for public schools into private school vouchers. Instead of helping public schools, the bill helps the privileged few who can both win the lottery and have the resources to pay the difference between the voucher and the cost of an education. That cost of education is usually more than just the tuition charged. So the recipient not only has to cover the whole tuition but also has to get access to a charity or a religious institution that would subsidize the cost of the education. Many who win the voucher lottery find that they can't even use the voucher because they can't afford the remaining cost of education.

And so we've heard a lot about the so-called choice of a private school education. That choice is only available to those who win the voucher lottery. So it's not a choice. It's a chance. With that same logic we can solve the Social Security problem by just selling Lotto tickets. Those who win the Lotto will be much better off. But, of course, few will win. Likewise, 90 percent of those who seek a voucher will lose the voucher lottery, and so they don't have a choice. Even though they have chosen the lottery, they don't have the choice. They will remain in public schools. And those schools will be worse because the money has been diverted.

The evidence now shows that even those who win the lottery may not be better off. Studies of the D.C. voucher program reveal that there's virtually no improvement in education. Furthermore, those the program was supposed to help are the ones that are benefiting. Those in failing schools represent a small portion of those who use vouchers. Many of those who use vouchers were already in private schools. And many more would have gone to private schools anyway.

The schools that these children attend with vouchers are not covered by the same educational accountability standards as public schools, and the students and employees are not covered by the same civil rights protections. So we should defeat this bill and channel these funds into the public schools in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Andy Harris.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague that would prohibit the use of funds made available by this bill to ``develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.'' In essence, the amendment would prohibit the EPA from spending any funds on the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load initiative in order to monitor and oversee pollution reduction into the Bay. It would result in rolling back the progress we have made on pollution reduction and restoring the Chesapeake over the decade. It would negatively impact not only the physical landscape of the Bay, but also the economic import and success of the Bay. And it would unfairly place the financial burden of reducing pollution squarely on the Chesapeake Bay states.

The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most productive estuary, with thousands of tributaries and 64,000 square miles of watershed that includes six states and the District of Columbia. The Bay supports more than 3,600 species of plants, fish and animals, is home to 29 species of waterfowl, and is a major resting ground along the Atlantic Migratory Bird Flyway. In addition, the Chesapeake is a commercial and recreational resource for the more than 15 million people who live in its basin, as well as visitors and tourists. Taking care of the Chesapeake Bay is vital to the environment and the economy, for recreation and natural resources, and for wildlife and the way of life in the Bay area. We use the Bay for recreation, agriculture, industry and navigation.

Just to give you a sense of the economic importance of the Bay, the 2008 Fisheries Economics of the U.S. report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicated that commercial seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia contributed $2 billion in sales, $1 billion in income, and more than 41,000 jobs to the local economy. The economic benefits of saltwater recreational fishing contributed $1.6 billion in sales which in turn contributed to more than $800 million of additional economic activity and roughly 13,000 jobs. The majority of this is from the Chesapeake Bay.

When we don't expend efforts to care for the Bay, that also has an economic impact. For example, in the area of commercial and recreational fisheries, the blue crab population continues to be threatened by poor water quality. When the broader impact on restaurants, crab processors, wholesalers, grocers, and watermen is added up, the decline of crabs in the Bay meant a cumulative loss to Maryland and Virginia of about $640 million between 1998 and 2006. Similarly, Oyster populations are threatened due to a combination of overharvesting, disease, and poor water quality. The decline of the Bay oyster over the last 30 years has meant a loss of more than $4 billion for Maryland and Virginia. In the area of public health, one study estimated the cost associated with exposure to polluted recreational marine waters to be $37 per gastrointestinal illness, $38 per ear ailment, and $27 per eye ailment due to lost wages and medical care. And with regard to clean water specifically, an EPA study indicated that clean water can increase the value of single family homes up to 4,000 feet from the water's edge by up to 25%. Perhaps most important, an EPA study of drinking water source protection efforts concluded that for every $1 spent on source water protection, an average of $27 is saved in water treatment costs.

Unfortunately, deterioration of the Bay and how to best address the problem has been a concern for more than two decades. When I served in the Virginia House of Delegates, I was part of a joint Virginia- Maryland legislative task force that first recommended the creation of a multi-state commission to address Bay issues. We filed a report in 1980 which recommended ``the need for improved coordination of Bay-wide management to meet the long-term needs of the people of both Maryland and Virginia.''

We have made great strides since then with the combined efforts of the federal government, state and local governments in the watershed, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, EPA, and all of their private partners over the last two decades. But we are far from done.

One of the most significant challenges facing the Bay today is pollution from wastewater treatment plants, development, transportation, stormwater runoff and runoff from agricultural lands. Prohibiting this funding would have a major impact on the water quality throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed states. It would significantly restrict efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff as well as monitoring and oversight of these efforts, all necessary to help protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.

The amendment is opposed by the Nature Conservancy, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Alaska Wilderness League, American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Center for Plant Conservation, Clean Water Action, Conservation Lands Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America, Environmental Working Group, Geos Institute, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Oceana, Oregon Wild, Population Action International, Southwest Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Wilderness Society, Trust for Public Land, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, and Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

For the foregoing reasons, I oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to concur in the Senate amendment, which will have the effect of passing the extension of the expiring provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Although the Senate has rejected the House version of the bill with a 1-year extension and has amended the bill to provide only a 90-day extension, which will provide us a more accelerated opportunity to actually deal with the issues involved, the reservations that I have previously stated on the floor remain the same. I still oppose any extension.

I cannot support this extension when the House has done nothing to consider these provisions of possible reform, even to hold a hearing or markup. While in the past, Members have had the opportunity to receive classified briefings, we have dozens of new Members, many on the Judiciary Committee, who have received no such briefings. The three sections scheduled to sunset are deeply troubling, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to review them carefully before they come before the House again.

Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' so long as the government provided a ``statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things are relevant to a foreign intelligence, international terrorism, or espionage investigation.'' That would include business records, library records, tax records, educational records, medical records, or anything else. Before the enactment of section 215, only specific types of records were subject to FISA orders, and the government had to show ``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.''

This dragnet approach allows the government to review personal records even if there is no reason to believe that the individual involved had anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most sensitive areas of our lives with little restraint on government. Congress should either ensure that the things collected with this power have a meaningful connection to suspected terrorism activity or allow the provision to expire.

Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps which permit the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. Without the necessity to specify the person and the facility to be tapped, you have a situation where the tap could be on a particular phone. And without specifically designating the person to be listened into, that means anybody using that pay phone, for example, can be listened into, or a roving wiretap on a person could result in any phone that that person might use being tapped, even if others use that phone, too.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the so-called ``lone wolf provision,'' permits secret intelligence of non-U.S. persons who are known to be not affiliated with any foreign government or organization. It provides the government with the ability to use secret courts or other investigatory tools that are acceptable in a domestic criminal investigation as long as we are dealing with a foreign government or an entity. According to government testimony, the lone wolf provision has never been used. Given the risk of this provision being used to circumvent existing protections against government intrusion, the government should explain why it should remain on the books. Surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign government or foreign organization is not what we usually understand as foreign intelligence. There may be good reason for government to keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to suspend all our laws under the pretext that it is a foreign intelligence operation.

While some have argued that these authorities remain necessary tools to fight against terrorism and that they must be extended without modification, others have counseled careful review and modification. Some have even urged that we allow some of those provisions to sunset; and if they are needed, they can be reinstated. I believe that we should not miss the opportunity to review the act in its entirety and examine how it is working, where it has been successful, where it has failed, where it has gone too far, or where it may need improvement. That's the purpose of sunsets; and to extend it without review undermines that purpose.

There are other authorities that deserve careful review. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has introduced the National Security Letters Reform Act which would make vital improvements to the current law to better protect civil liberties while ensuring that those letters remain a useful tool in national security investigations. I hope we can work to strike that balance in a responsible and effective manner, but the record of the abuse of the authority in those letters is too great for the Congress to ignore.

It is encouraging that there was significant bipartisan opposition last week to the extension of the Patriot Act. It shows a healthy skepticism of unrestrained government power to spy on people in the United States. We need to restore our traditional respect for the right of every individual to be secure from unchecked government intrusion, and I hope that we will be able, after this vote, to carefully examine the ways these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways to reform the law in light of that experience. That's the purpose of sunsets, and I hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, the 90-day extension in this bill is significantly more appropriate than the 10-month extension that the House has previously passed. If the bill is passed, I look forward to working with the leadership on the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee in the past has been able to work constructively on this issue. In fact, when the Patriot Act was originally reported out of the Judiciary Committee, it was reported on a unanimous vote. That is very unusual. The Judiciary Committee is usually one of the more contentious committees in the entire Congress. But we can work together, and I look forward to working with the leadership of the committee as we deal with the possible extension of many of these provisions.

I hope we will oppose the extension.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, we must acknowledge that passing a continuing resolution will do nothing to create jobs. We are stuck with an unemployment rate of 9 percent and have left the long-term unemployed who have exhausted their unemployment benefits out in the cold.

Representative Lee's amendment makes it clear that some of us have not forgotten about these individuals and their families. The amendment will ensure that these hardworking Americans will have access to unemployment benefits during this historic economic recession. It's not only the right thing to do, but it will also help our economy.

Economists estimate that the U.S. economy grows by over $1.60 for every $1 the government spends on unemployment compensation because unemployed persons usually spend all of their benefits quickly. This $1.60 is in stark contrast to the 20 cents in economic activity generated by some of the tax cuts we passed last month. Put simply, unemployment compensation is one of the most efficient and effective ways to stimulate the economy. But extending benefits is only one part of a comprehensive approach that is needed to get the long-term unemployed back to work.

Many of the Americans who have lost their jobs have lost jobs that are not coming back, jobs that have been shipped overseas or jobs that now require new skills. So while unemployment compensation is the temporary solution, we need to simultaneously be providing job training programs and educational training to help American workers develop the new in-demand skills. Unfortunately, this resolution actually cuts job training programs.

We face very difficult choices when it comes to the Federal budget, and there's no easy solution to solve our budget problems. When I first came to Congress in 1993, we considered a budget that put an end to fiscal recklessness. We passed a budget that, by the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, would not only have eliminated the deficit but had a projected surplus large enough to have paid off the entire national debt held by the public 2 years ago. That means we would have owed no money to Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia. That budget also led to record job growth, but it required tough choices; and in fact, dozens of Members who voted for that budget lost their seats in the next election.

In contrast, under the Bush administration, we passed popular but huge tax cuts without paying for them, a prescription drug benefit without paying for it, a $700 billion bailout without paying for it, and cut taxes in the middle of two wars, all of which put us in the economic ditch. Now, in order to get the present deficits under control, we are going to have to make some tough choices. Unfortunately, at the end of last year, we made a move in the wrong direction when Congress passed a huge tax cut bill, at a total 2-year cost of $800 billion, without paying for it. To put that number in perspective, $800 billion exceeds the general fund budget of all 50 States. That's right. Add it up. If you add up all the general fund budgets of the 50 States, it comes up to a total of $650 billion, less than the cost of the $800 billion tax cut bill.

Before that bill was passed, many of us asked how we're going to pay for it, but nobody wanted to answer it. Everybody who supported the bill focused solely on the nice tax cuts. But now we're going to debate a long list of spending cuts in the proposed resolution to show how we're paying for it. The safety net is attacked: low-income energy assistance; Women, Infants and Children's nutrition; the health centers; housing; and investments in our future, like the National Science Foundation, NASA, Pell Grants, job training, clean water, high- speed rail. These are the things that we're cutting to pay for some of last year's tax cut bill. Now the American people are seeing how we're going to pay for it.

Last year we passed the tax cuts that gave great benefits to multimillionaires, and now we're paying for it by inflicting pain on vulnerable portions of our population. We can do better, and that's why we need to fight against these draconian cuts and programs that are so important to so many people and, instead, provide assistance where it helps not only individuals but helps the economy, as the Lee amendment does.

The American people deserve better than this resolution. We should support the Lee amendment but oppose the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do just that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

Mr. Chairman, the CR's proposal before us proposes to cut $190 million from juvenile justice programs. That cut is shortsighted and misguided. Cutting effective crime prevention programs is penny wise and pound foolish because we have reams of research and demonstration programs to show that evidence-based crime prevention programs save a lot of money in avoided law enforcement, victim, incarceration, and

other expenditures and actually save more than the programs cost.

The current Justice Department is making excellent progress in assuring that crime prevention programs and funding are only used for those programs that have proven their effectiveness through vigorous evaluation and study and programs that have shown their effectiveness. I can see that cutting unproven programs as a result of earmarks that haven't gone through that vigorous demonstration would be appropriate, but the programs in the Justice Department should not be cut.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of organizations that have written in opposition of the cuts in the juvenile justice programs. They include the National Disability Rights Network, the Campaign for Youth Justice, the Children's Law Center, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, The Afterschool Alliance, the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

Mr. Chairman, last month we passed a tax bill that increased the deficit by $400 billion a year for 2 years. Now, we obviously need to cut the budget to pay for those tax cuts, but cutting funding for juvenile justice programs that are proven to save more money than they cost is not the right thing to do. We need to defeat this bill and come back with a bill that fully funds the juvenile justice programs so that we can save money and reduce crime.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering the amendment and the gentleman from California for his remarks.

Legal Services Corporation programs are forced to already reject over half the cases that come before them. This cut found in the CR only makes matters worse by requiring the firing of hundreds of Legal Services Corporation attorneys.

Mr. Chairman, our justice system promises fairness to all litigants; but when people are unable to afford a lawyer, they are vulnerable to being ripped off in consumer transactions, vulnerable to unnecessary evictions, or unable to afford a divorce or resolve child custody disputes.

Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that justice is more than just an idea. One Supreme Court Justice suggested that the kind of justice one gets should not depend on the amount of money they have. Two months ago, we passed a tax cut that gave significant tax relief to multimillionaires. It would be tragic if Legal Services Corporation funding for legal aid lawyers was cut to help pay for those tax cuts to multimillionaires.

Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation needs to be fully funded. We should defeat this CR and come up with a continuing resolution that fully funds the Legal Services Corporation. Again, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Scott of Virginia

Amendment No. 535: Page 198, line 3, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 203, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, which would extend for 1 year sweeping governmental intrusions into our lives and privacy that were authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2004 Intelligence Act. Without meaningful oversight and committee deliberations demonstrating that these extraordinary powers are needed, we should not extend these provisions for one full year, or for any period of time for that matter, and I therefore oppose the bill.

I am opposed because I simply do not accept the argument that, in order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the formation of our Nation: ``They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the Patriot Act, which gives the government power to secretly invade our private records, such as books we read at the library, by merely alleging that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation but without having to show that the seized material is in connection with any specific suspected terrorists or terrorist activities.

There is no requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of being related to a specific act of terrorism, and therefore, there is no meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is, in fact, necessary.

Another provision of H.R. 514 is section 206 of the Patriot Act which is referred to as the ``roving John Doe wiretap provision.'' It gives the government the power to wiretap a phone conversation without having to show which phone will be tapped or even who will be using it, and without requiring a court order for a specific roving tap.

The third provision is Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, referred to as the lone wolf provision. It gives the government the power to spy on individuals in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, even though they are not agents of a foreign government or any terrorist organization. Unfortunately, this means that if those targeted had any interaction with an American citizen, then that American citizen is spied upon as well.

We have already allowed spying on such noncitizens outside of the United States or even in the United States where there is probable cause, only that they are agents of a foreign government or members of a terrorist organization, but this is an extension of that power that can envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting with a targeted person, even while in the United States.

The three provisions give the government power to invade our privacy even when there is no probable cause, nor even reasonable suspicion or credible evidence of any wrongdoing, and without allowing the kind of detached oversight such as a court warrant, which is generally called upon when such power over individuals is extended. And it is important to note that in cases of emergencies, warrants can be obtained after the fact. Law enforcement officials can perform wiretaps and searches in emergency situations and then get a warrant.

So, Mr. Speaker, absent oversight protections, even when after the fact warrants are available, all three of these provisions should be allowed to expire unless we demonstrate in oversight hearings and committee deliberations that these powers are necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling national security interest. These freedoms and protections that these provisions take away are the very core of our values and liberties. So these protections should not be legislated away without committee deliberations guaranteeing rigorous oversight to protect against abuse.