Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I imagine that Admiral McConnell is watching and listening, and so allow me this morning to thank all of the patriots that are stationed around the world that are the front lines of the national security and defense and intelligence community of this Nation. To the American people, let me say on your behalf, we thank them, for they are working every day, and they are working diligently, and they are being successful.

This rule today supporting the underlying bill should be passed, because Admiral McConnell is aware that every single tool that he has asked for, foreign-to-foreign and otherwise in terms of surveillance, is in this bill.

Interestingly enough, if you will talk to members of the law enforcement community and those who are dealing with terrorists, they will tell you that they are intercepting terrorists. They are finding terrorists every single day. I personally spoke to law enforcement who noted in one region of the country that they have intercepted three terrorists. So what we are doing today is providing the codified document to secure your civil liberties, to suggest that if the focus of your surveillance is actually an American, they have to have a court intervention, a quick court intervention.

As it relates to our telecom companies, is anyone suggesting that they are not patriots? Is anyone suggesting that they will not comply with a request by the national security community?

They will, because in this bill it indicates to them that if they get a letter that suggests that we need their help, that they are not breaking the law, that all of the laws have been in compliance certified by the AG, they get absolute immunity.

So going forward, there will be no question. If that happened in the past, they have absolute immunity. There will be no gaping hole, and the idea of avoiding retroactive immunity is a question to America. It is protecting your civil liberties. Yes, we have been secure, or we have avoided a tragedy since 9/11. It is because we have given them the tools, and now we give them better tools.

It is important to pass this legislation, because it advances the security of America. But what it says to the world is that we are not terrorized by the terrorists. We believe in security, but we believe in the civil liberties of all Americans.

The Constitution still stands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the H. Res. 1041, Providing for Consideration of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3773, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act. This Rule will allow us to examine the Senate Amendment and to consider the many concerns associated with this act.

We have worked as a body to resolve our issues with FISA and with those of our Senate colleagues without eviscerating the fundamental rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Leadership has worked tirelessly to not simply reconcile the Senate language with the RESTORE Act (H.R. 3773), which we passed in the House on November 15, 2007, but leadership has also worked tirelessly to go beyond the RESTORE Act. This current FISA Reform legislation has been borne out of this tireless struggle. Let me detail some of the ways that the FISA Reform Act balances security and liberty: adopting provisions from the Senate bill that will for the first time provide statutory protections for U.S. persons overseas, that ensures surveillance of their communications are conducted through the courts; and providing a mechanism for telecommunications carriers to prove their case that they did not engage in any wrongdoing and to guarantee due process with a fair hearing in court.

Like the RESTORE Act, the FISA reform legislation provides for collection against terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, while providing prior court approval of acquisition and an on-going process of review and oversight in order to protect Americans' privacy.

The FISA Reform Act creates a bipartisan commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities with strong investigatory powers in order to preserve the rule of law in pending and future lawsuits. This revised version of the bill reiterates FISA's exclusive control for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, unless a specific statutory authorization for surveillance is enacted. This is an area where the House version has differed from the Senate.

Perhaps the most important distinction between the House version of the bill and the Senate's version is that the Court must approve surveillance procedures prior to the start of surveillance. Under the Senate bill, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney

General authorize surveillance and submit procedures to the FISA Court 5 days after surveillance begins. Under the Senate bill, the FISA Court has no firm deadline for approving the procedures. The Senate bill does not go far enough in protecting the individual rights of Americans.

The FISA Reform Act requires submission to Congress and the FISA Court of ``reverse targeting'' guidelines that are to be promulgated by the NSA. Specifically, these guidelines will determine whether the ``significant purpose'' of the surveillance is to acquire communications of a specific U.S. person. In this regard, the House bill gives more teeth to the provisions in the Senate bill, which only has general prohibitions against reverse targeting and does not require the promulgation of agency guidelines addressing reverse targeting.

Both the FISA Reform Act and the Senate bill, provide for prospective liability protection for telecommunications companies that assist with lawful surveillance activities. However, the FISA Reform Act goes further by ensuring that telecommunication companies complying with the Protect America Act (PAA) have liability protection for lawful surveillance that occurred after the expiration of the PAA.

Another major difference between the bills is that the FISA Reform Act does not provide for any retroactive immunity. Instead, the FISA Reform Act provides for a process to allow district courts to review classified evidence in camera and ex parte (in front of the judge without the presence of the plaintiff). This allows the telecommunications companies to have their day in court and to assert defenses that already exist under FISA and other statutes. This process simply creates a pathway for companies to assert such defenses.

This process, which allows the Court to review information and the companies to prove their case, prevents the Executive Branch from blocking the companies from asserting their defenses under the doctrine of ``state secrets'' privilege. The FISA Reform Act permits the telecommunication companies an opportunity to defend themselves but does not create any new defenses or immunity and it does not excuse any conduct that may have been unlawful. Under the House bill, telecommunication companies can prove their innocence in court without the protection of the States immunity privilege. If these companies cannot prove that their actions were proper then they will be held accountable.

The Senate bill grants full immunity to any telecommunication company where the Attorney General certified that assistance was requested as part of the President's warrantless surveillance program. This blanket immunity goes to far, and do not support full immunity.

I believe the FISA Reform Act is better because it provides the telecommunications companies with due process and an opportunity to prove their guilt or innocence. I cannot support a case for blanket immunity and the FISA Reform Act does not allow it.

Lastly, the FISA Reform Act provides a forward looking provision that establishes a bipartisan National Commission, appointed by Congress. The Commission will investigate and report to Congress and the public about the Administration's warrantless surveillance activities.

Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us need to be secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, and secure in our communications.

I find it disturbing that our Republican colleagues will not join us to ensure that Americans are safe here and abroad. Disturbing that they do not recognize that we must protect the civil liberties of this Nation just as we protect American lives.

Mr. Speaker, in August of last year, I strongly opposed S. 1927, the so-called ``Protect America Act'' (PAA), when it came to a vote on the House floor. Had the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the two preceding years, we would not have been in the position of debating legislation that had such a profoundly negative impact on the national security and on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent circumstances. As that regrettable episode clearly showed, it is true as the saying goes that haste makes waste.

The PAA was stampeded through the Congress in the midnight hour of the last day before the long August recess on the dubious claim that it was necessary to fill a gap in the Nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. In reality, it would have circumvented the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and represented an unwarranted transfer of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice Department led at that time by an Attorney General whose reputation for candor and integrity was, to put it charitably, subject to considerable doubt.

Under the House bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and is accorded a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. The bill ensures that the FISC is empowered to act as an Article III court should act, which means the court shall operate neither as a rubber-stamp nor a bottleneck. Rather, the function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that the loudest demands for blanket immunity did not come from the telecommunications companies but from the administration, which raises the interesting question of whether the administration's real motivation is to shield from public disclosure the ways and means by which government officials may have ``persuaded'' telecommunications companies to assist in its warrantless surveillance programs.

My amendment, which was added during the markup last year, made a constructive contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying down a clear, objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce in preventing reverse targeting.

``Reverse targeting'' is a concept well known to members of the Judiciary Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the minutiae of electronic surveillance; it is the practice where the Government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons.

One of the major concerns that libertarians, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with the FISA is that the temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting is often difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent it.

My amendment, accepted in the House Judiciary mark up, reduced any temptation to resort to reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular, individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the surveillance is a person in the United States.

The amendment achieved this objective by requiring the administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.''

The language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson-Lee Amendment provided a clearer, more objective, criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can agree should not be permitted.

Mr. Speaker, nothing in the Act or the amendments to the Act should require the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States. Rather, what should be required, is a FISA order only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications.

The acquisition of communications will happen over time and the Government will have the time to get an order while continuing its surveillance. It is the national security interest to require the Government to obtain an order at that point, so that it can lawfully acquire all of the target person's communications rather than continuing to listen to only some of them.

We are living in a time of economic crisis and acts of unfettered terrorism. Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that ``our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.''

Like former President Roosevelt, we must secure our Nation from foreign entanglements but at the same time we must continue to champion the fundamental freedoms of all Americans regardless of whether the surveillance occurs in the United States or abroad.

It is very important to me; and it should be very important to Members of this body that we require what should be required in all cases--a warrant any time there is surveillance of a United States citizen.

In short, the Senate amendment to the House amendment makes a good bill even better. For this reason alone, civil libertarians should enthusiastically embrace the amended H.R. 3773.

The Bush administration would like the American people to believe that Democrats do not want to protect America. My Republican colleagues echo this false claim in both the chambers of Congress by questioning our patriotism. But I remind them that tyrannical behavior often questions the motivations of those seeking to protect civil liberties.

Let us not fall prey to false proclamations of an administration that takes our Bill of Rights and lays it to the side when they feel like it. Security must go hand-in-hand with liberty. Oppression of some for the alleged security of others is not the example this great Nation should set.

As I wrote in the Politico, ``the best way to win the war on terror is to remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of international villains will defeat the United States in the pursuit of its vital interests.''

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for the United States to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love.

Mr. Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes on a sound legal footing, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned.

I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based on probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a basket warrant without making individual determinations about foreign surveillance.

In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I must restate my firm conviction that when it comes to the track record of this President's warrantless surveillance programs, there is still not enough on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the trustworthiness of this administration, to indicate that they require a blank check from Congress.

The Bush administration did not comply with its legal obligation under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence activities. Congress cannot continue to rely upon incomplete information from the Bush administration or upon erroneous revelations leaked through the media. Instead Congress must conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those that occur within the United States and abroad.

The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must include the operational details of each program of intelligence surveillance within the United States, including:

(1) Who the NSA is targeting;

(2) How it identifies its targets;

(3) The information the program collects and disseminates; and most important;

(4) Whether the program advances national security interests without unduly compromising the privacy rights of the American people.

Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to Join me In a vote of support for H. Res. 1041, the Rule providing for FISA Amendments Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Having heard all of the answers to all of the questions that have been raised by the opposition, knowing that full justice, civil liberties and the protection is in this bill, I rise in support of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3773, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This body has worked diligently with our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the civil liberties of American citizens are appropriately addressed.

We have worked to not simply reconcile the Senate language with the RESTORE Act (H.R. 3773) which we passed in the House on November 15, 2007, but to go beyond the RESTORE Act as part of FISA Reform legislation by: Adopting provisions from the Senate bill that will for the first time provide statutory protections for U.S. persons overseas, that ensures surveillance of their communications are conducted through the courts; and Providing a mechanism for telecommunications carriers to prove their case that they did not engage in any wrongdoing and to guarantee due process with a fair hearing in court.

Like the RESTORE Act, the FISA reform legislation provides for collection against terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, while providing prior court approval of acquisition and an on-going process of review and oversight in order to protect Americans' privacy.

The revised House bill creates a bipartisan commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities with strong investigatory powers in order to preserve the rule of law in pending and future lawsuits. This revised version of the bill continues to reiterate FISA's exclusive control for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, and requires explicit statutory authorization for any means outside of FISA. This is an area where the House version has differed from the Senate.

Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us need to be secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, and secure in our communications.

I find it disturbing that our Republican colleagues will not join us to ensure that Americans are safe here and abroad. Disturbing that they do not recognize that we must protect the civil liberties of this nation just as we protect American lives.

Mr. Speaker, in August of this year, I strongly opposed S. 1927, the so-called ``Protect America Act'' (PAA) when it came to a vote on the House floor. Had the Bush Administration and the Republican-dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the two preceding years, we would not have been in the position of debating legislation that had such a profoundly negative impact on the national security and on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent circumstances. As that regrettable episode clearly showed, it is true as the saying goes that haste makes waste.

The PAA was stampeded through the Congress in the midnight hour of the last day before the long August recess on the dubious claim that it was necessary to fill a gap in the nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. In reality it would have eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and represented an unwarranted transfer of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice Department led at that time by an Attorney General whose reputation for candor and integrity was, to put it charitably, subject to considerable doubt.

Under the House bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC is indispensable and is accorded a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. The bill ensures that the FISC is empowered to act as an Article III court should act, which means the court shall operate neither as a rubber-stamp nor a bottleneck. Rather, the function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that the loudest demands for blanket immunity did not come from the telecommunications companies but from the administration, which raises the interesting question of whether the administration's real motivation is to shield from public disclosure the ways and means by which government officials may have ``persuaded'' telecommunications companies to assist in its warrantless surveillance programs. I call my colleagues' attention to an article published in the Washington Post in which it is reported that Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, alleges that his company was denied NSA contracts after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting at Fort Meade with National Security Agency, NSA, representatives to give the NSA customer calling records.

To give a detailed illustration of just how superior the RESTORE Act is to the ill-considered and hastily enacted Protect America Act, I wish to take a few moments to discuss an important improvement in the bill that was adopted in the full Judiciary Committee markup.

My amendment, which was added during the markup, made a constructive contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying down a clear, objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce in preventing reverse targeting.

``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the Government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons.

One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with the PAA is that the understandable temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards in the PAA to prevent it.

My amendment reduces even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular, individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the surveillance is a person in the United States.

The amendment achieves this objective by requiring the administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.'' The current language in the bill provides that a warrant be obtained only when the Government ``seeks to conduct electronic surveillance'' of a person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.

It was far from clear how the operative language ``seeks to'' is to be interpreted. In contrast, the language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson Lee Amendment provides a clearer, more objective, criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can agree should not be permitted.

Mr. Speaker, nothing in the Act or the amendments to the Act should require the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States. Rather, what should be required, is a FISA order only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications.

This will usually happen over time and the Government will have the time to get an order while continuing its surveillance. It is the national security interest to require it to obtain an order at that point, so that it can lawfully acquire all of the target person's communications rather than continuing to listen to only some of them.

It is very important to me, and it should be very important to Members of this body that we require what should be required in all cases--a warrant anytime there is surveillance of a United States citizen.

In short, the Senate amendment to the House version makes a good bill even better. For this reason alone, civil libertarians should enthusiastically embrace H.R. 3773.

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage.

As I wrote in the Politico, ``the best way to win the war on terror is to remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of international villains will defeat the United States in the pursuit of its vital interests.''

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for the United States country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love.

Mr. Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes on a sound legal footing, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned.

However, I know that FISA as it is run currently attempts to circumvent the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties of the American people. I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based on probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a ``basket warrant'' without making individual determinations about foreign surveillance.

In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I must restate my firm conviction that when it comes to the track record of this President's warrantless surveillance programs, there is still not enough on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the trustworthiness of this administration, to indicate that they require a blank check from Congress.

The Bush administration did not comply with its legal obligation under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence activities. Congress cannot continue to rely on incomplete information from the Bush administration or revelations in the media. It must conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those that occur within FISA and those that occur outside FISA.

The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must include the operational details of each program of intelligence surveillance within the United States, including: (1) who the NSA is targeting; (2) how it identifies its targets; (3) the information the program collects and disseminates; and most important, (4) whether the program advances national security interests without unduly compromising the privacy rights of the American people.

Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in a vote of support for the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 3773, as it seeks to balance our Nation's securities and our civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud your leadership, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the day's and the week's events, because many times, as we discuss these matters on the floor of the House, many of our constituents and Americans sometimes wonder the order of our words.

This afternoon we did an important and major leap towards securing this Nation and providing it with the protection of civil liberties. Although in the course of the discussion there may have been accusations, the FISA bill, the amendments to the Senate bill, was the right approach and the right direction to take.

You know, we had an opportunity last evening for a secret session, and I was on the floor questioning the validity of such, because I always believe what we do in America should be in the eyes of America, although we recognize in this time of terrorism there is a necessity for classified documents or top secret documents, but there is never a time to close the door on America's knowledge.

I would not want this debate that many of you may have heard to be characterized as one of a coverup that we are doing something that does not provide the absolute safety and wise direction that America should take. I wanted to simply add to my statements that will be put into the Record the idea that this bill provides the opportunity to secure foreign-to-foreign surveillance, but it also avoids the targeting of Americans without the intervention of the court so that if you were, by chance, talking to a relative in a foreign land that might, without your knowledge, be targeted or through some way, might be connected, that would draw surveillance, you can be assured that as an American, unlike the occurrence with Martin Luther King and some Americans during the Vietnam War, that you have the intervention of a court established first in 1978 under President Carter.

We have streamlined that. The language called ``reverse targeting'' was an amendment that I submitted into the Judiciary Committee that would avoid targeting an American without the intervention of a court, not a court for 6 days or 6 weeks, but an automatic intervention that is given to you within hours.

We have a system where the Attorney General now must, along with the Director of Intelligence, put in guidelines to be able to oversee what happens when an American is targeted. I

can ask any American whether or not that is a reasonable approach. If they study the question, I think they would understand that no intelligence and no opportunity to secure or to capture a terrorist has been intervened with while we have been having these debates, because we had the security of the bill that has been in place, the Protect America Act, for over a year.

Authorities still exist, even through the recess that we will take, to provide the intelligence community with any tools that they will need. But it is a sad state of affairs in America if we allow the terrorists to terrorize us and to, in essence, tear up the Constitution.

That is what we did today. We protected the Constitution, and we ensured that those who are concerned, the telecommunications company, many of them, we know their names, are, in fact, protected.

One, we protect them going forward. Two, we give them a cure for the litigation that is going on today, because we don't prohibit the review of top secret documents in camera. The cases that are going on now, those telecommunications companies will be protected because they will have the ability to review the evidence so that they can convince the court that they were operating within the law.

Going forward, we will get a certified letter from the Attorney General or the Director of Intelligence to say we need information from you. We will tell them that they are not breaking the law. We will also tell them that they will be in compliance with all laws. Out of that they will get absolute immunity to provide our Central Intelligence Agency and others the necessary information that we would have.

I think it is important that debate, sometimes looking as if they are accusatory, and one side looking like they have the upper hand, suggesting that we are in crisis, leaving in a recess, that America is unprotected, needs to be clarified. America will be protected. We do have authority in place that could provide the Central Intelligence or other national intelligence agencies any information that they need.

God knows after 9/11 all of us are committed to the war on terror, but we are all recognizing that a Constitution survives no matter what condition America is in. The Constitution survived the Civil War. It survived World War I. It survived World War II, the Vietnam War. It survived the Korean War, the Gulf War and now the Iraq war.

I would ask America, can we not secure ourselves and keep the civil liberties of Americans and the Constitution intact? Today, in voting for this bill, I proudly supported both concepts. I am grateful to be an American, grateful that we have a Constitution that always lives and never dies.

God bless the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the front lines. I look forward to visiting with those soldiers in the next couple of days in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Virginia for the leadership of the Budget Committee and the CBC budget effort that he has led continuously, and Congresswoman Kilpatrick, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus.

It is important to note that I think Americans are tired of the ``I's and me's'' budget, and that is the budget of this administration, a lot of ``I's,'' a lot of ``me's,'' but never a lot of ``we's.''

I think it is evident that this budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, reflects some of the startling facts that Americans are facing. First, the loss of 63,000 jobs in the last month under this administration, the categorizing of this administration as second only to former President Hoover in having the worst economy in the Nation's history. And, of course, if you just go out and talk to Mr. and Mrs. Smith or Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez or many others, they will tell you that a recession is on the way.

This budget acknowledges the needs of our Nation. It provides the honor to our veterans by increasing that budget for health care, benefits and educational opportunities $60.9 billion. Today we honored the wounded warriors. We spoke to some of them, who said that we are now being assessed for our benefits.

This is what this budget does: it provides more dollars for Community Development Block Grants going into our community for nutrition programs and housing programs by $27.4 billion. I can tell you that the City of Houston has 1,500 senior citizens on a waiting list to rehab their homes that need this budget.

In addition, this administration has had the worst civil rights enforcement ever in the history of the United States. This budget ups the President's budget by $200 million to help those who have been discriminated against.

As you can see, this tells you about the income of Americans under this administration. It is now minus. Minus. Americans are losing money. They are now losing income. We are now in the red. Americans are struggling. If you listen to the Nation's reports about foreclosures, you will find out that Americans are losing their homes by the hundreds. You will find out that the foreclosure market is stalled to the extent that so many people are losing their homes and not trying to regain them. What does that mean? People are out in the streets looking for housing.

Let me applaud Mr. Scott and the CBC budget team for recognizing the concept of competitiveness. For in addition to reflecting the need for increased science activity, I am very glad that they have added moneys to aeronautics. They have likewise put in a $175 million plus-up on aeronautics research.

Right now as we stand here today, Endeavor is making its way to the international space station. It is there now putting forward outstanding research that will bring about jobs. And that is maintained.

Let me also thank them in my concluding remarks to recognize that we must continue to provide for the soldiers, but we want those troops home. We have in this budget language that suggests that any dollars given to the administration must be used to redeploy our troops home. These are the same troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been redeployed once, twice, three times, four times. Their families are suffering. This bill provides us with an outlet for these returning soldiers by increasing the educational budget and providing, of course, more for health care, and, yes, fighting the international drudge of

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Congressional Black Caucus, CBC, Budget Substitute for the Fiscal Year Budget for 2009, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick and my colleague from Virginia, Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.

While I support the Budget as put forth by our majority on the Budget Committee, I believe there is more that needs to be done when this country is on the verge of a recession, the housing market is at one of its worst points in history, and we have a growing population of uninsured Americans.

CBC Budget Rescinds Tax Cuts

The CBC budget rescinds tax cuts for the top two income tax rates and rescinds capital gains and dividend tax cuts in addition to closing other loopholes. By rescinding these tax cuts, the CBC budget fully funds No Child Left Behind, NCLB, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and it provides additional funding for the fight against global AIDS, Community Development Block Grants, CDBG, and higher education, among other items.

Balances the Budget

Even after funding these priorities, the CBC alternative budget still manages to balance the budget after FY12 and in fact creates a surplus of $141 billion. The Democratic budget is also in surplus in FY12 but does not fund the priorities of the American people at the same

levels as the CBC budget. In comparison, the President's budget deficit in the FY12 is -31 billion.

Moreover, in FY08-FY12, the CBC budget's total cumulative deficit is $107 billion better than the Democratic budget and $339 billion better than the President's budget. As a result, over the next 5 years, the CBC budget saves $18.3 billion on interest on the national debt compared to the Democratic budget and $27.7 billion compared to the President's budget.

The bottom line is that the CBC budget chooses programs important to the American people over tax cuts for those who need it least. At the same time, it reduces the deficit and reaches a surplus in FY 2012.

Advancing the Priorities of the American People

We must not only be economically healthy but assist in balancing it with the health, education, and security of our citizens. The CBC budget will advance the priorities of the American people by:

Covering all eligible children with health insurance through funding SCHIP, with $119.3 billion more than the President's budget and $84.6 billion more than the Democratic budget to help one of our most vulnerable populations--children;

Ensuring No Child Left Behind, NCLB, has increased funding for Head Start programs, IDEA, college access programs, college loan programs and job training with $162.7 billion more than the President's budget and $101.2 billion more than the Democratic budget;

Honoring our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits and educational opportunities with $60.9 billion more than the President's budget, and $17.7 billion than the Democratic budget;

Making more local communities with support through increases to Community Development Block Grants, nutrition programs and housing programs with $27.4 billion more than the President's budget and $20 billion more than the Democratic budget; and

Contributing to the global community by investing in child survival and health, international family planning and the global effort to fight AIDS with $11.5 billion more than the President's budget and $16.9 billion more on international affairs than the Democratic budget.

Health Initiatives

The CBC budget under the Health Function 550 included a program that I continually push for increased funding, and that is the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Hope for juvenile diabetes cure lies in research. Real progress is being made, thanks largely to Government funding of the Special Diabetes Program. However without the renewal of the program, Federal support for Type I Diabetes will be reduced by 35 percent.

The health and health care spending in the CBC budget alternative is the fiscally, socially and morally appropriate and responsible response to the President's FY09 health care budget proposal, which showcases grave cuts to every office and agency, as well as to every program that is integrally important to efforts to eliminate health disparities and improve the health, well-being and life opportunities of all Americans.

The CBC budget alternative, unlike the President's FY09 budget, strengthens our Nation's overwhelmed and under-resourced health care system, champions the critically important health care needs of health care seekers, and fills the gaps in health care access and quality that detrimentally affect our Nation's health care providers and the overall health care system.

The CBC budget alternative makes a more than $174 billion additional investment in the health, health care, well-being and thus life opportunities of not only African-Americans, but all Americans. Additionally, the budget makes this very wise investment as it generates monies to reduce the Nation's deficit.

The CBC budget alternative strengthens and expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program to ensure that the majority of the Nation's 9 million uninsured children have access to health care. This is of particular relevance to the CBC because a disproportionate number of the 9 million uninsured children today are African-American or Hispanic. Without reliable access to quality health care, children are in poorer health, are less productive in school and in their communities, and are less likely to fulfill their life's potential.

Health Equity Fund

The CBC budget alternative creates the Health Equity Fund, which will help ensure that this Nation take a giant step forward in efforts to reduce and eliminate all health disparities and achieve health equity.

Strengthens Medicare

The CBC budget alternative strengthens Medicare--a critically important program that ensures that our Nation's senior citizens, as well as those living with disabilities, have access to the health care services and treatments they need to live longer, healthier and fuller lives.

The CBC budget alternative also: saves Title VII (health professions training) programs, which are integral to strengthening and expanding tomorrow's health care workforce; funds the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program in a manner that allows it to expand ADAP, the efforts of National Minority AIDS Education Training Centers, and the other important services and treatments offered to our most vulnerable with HIV infection; funds the Minority AIDS Initiative in a manner that will build the needed capacity in racial and ethnic minority communities throughout the Nation to respond and address HIV/AIDS.

It is our children that will bring forth a thriving future. We need to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with their physical well-being. Children who cannot see the doctor when they are sick, research programs that are not adequately funded to find a cure for diseases such as diabetes, hurt our future generations, and do not help lay a foundation for a bright future.

Education and African-Americans in Texas

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This budget provides greater funding to our Nation's schools and colleges than even our Democratic budget supplies.

For African-Americans, health and education concerns spill beyond budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over 87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 48,000 African-Americans attending college or university. The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the number of young people in college, particularly in the African-American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities.

The Republican Budget Substitute

Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode. The gross Federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the history books. During the 7 years of the current Administration, the Government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's history. The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that brought us to this point.

CBC Budget Compared to the President's and Democratic Budgets

The CBC budget improves the deficit by $564 billion over the President's budget and $152 billion over the Democratic budget.

The CBC budget saves on interest on the national debt $48.1 billion compared to the President's budget, and $22.7 billion compared to the Democratic budget.

The CBC budget spends more over 5 years on health care, veterans, education, and justice than either the President's budget or the Democratic budget. The CBC budget also addresses the President's shortfalls in funding critical Homeland Security programs such as the Port Security Grant Program and grants for First Responders.

Port of Houston and Security Measures

Just yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Port Authority of Houston. They were here to discuss their security measures but also their need for continued Federal dollars. The Bush administration claims they want to secure our Nation but cuts funding in areas that are important to our local security such as the ports in Houston, Texas. The CBC seeks to cure that shortfall.

Administration of Justice

Under the proposed CBC budget, there is a greater emphasis on the administration of justice and the protection of all Americans. The CBC budget funds programs that the President's budget had severely reduced or not funded at all. These programs must be funded. The CBC budget funds the Justice Assistance Grant Program, Juvenile Justice Programs, the Byrne Weed and Seed Program, Office of Violence Against Women, COPS and JAG programs. All of these programs help keep American communities safe and provide for greater law enforcement at the Federal, State, and local enforcement levels. The CBC budget reinvests in DOJ Prisoner Reentry Program. In addition, the CBC budget invests in our children by requiring funding for Boys and Girls clubs. This investment in our communities and in our children helps keep our youths safe and out of the prison system.

General Sciences, Space and Technology

The CBC budget proposes to invest heavily in our Nation's development in science, space, and technology. The CBC budget invests $31 million in NASA educational programs and $8 million in HBCU-UP. The CBC budget also invests in the NSF Education and Research Programs, with a special emphasis on minority post doctorates. The CBC budget not only invests in minorities, it also invests in women by

providing over $500,000 for Graduate Research Fellowships for Women in Engineering and Computer Science.

Energy

The CBC budget addresses the environment, energy, and natural resources. The CBC budget provides for $250 million to the weatherization assistance and it provides for $400 million for the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. These programs are of particular interest to the people of Texas and I think it is necessary for America to remain a vital, energy efficient country. With respect to natural resources and the environment, the CBC budget provides $100 million for EPA funding and $1 billion for the HBCU Historic Preservation Program.

Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services

The proposed CBC budget puts greater emphasis on education, training, employment, and social services. These are critical to the needs of Americans and minority populations in general.

The CBC budget provides funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. Included in that act is funding for Title I, Safe and Drug Free Schools, 21st Century Learning Centers, and Teacher Quality Programs. We must continue to invest in our children because they represent the future of America.

The CBC budget also recognizes that there must be investment in Head Start, mentoring, and dropout prevention. The proposed CBC budget provides $50 million to vocational programs and increases the funding of HBCUs by $200 million. The CBC budget provides for $50 million in investment in minority science and engineering improvement. The CBC budget provides $2 million for Thurgood Marshall Legal Fund, which is a very important measure for educating minority qualified minority lawyers. In addition, the CBC budget invests in adult employment and training activities.

Pay-Go and Sunset Provisions

The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate pay-go and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.

The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budgets actually calls for the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and not make the deficit worse.

Conclusion

This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is balanced fiscally and morally. It does not sacrifice the great many programs and services that this Nation needs for a war that the President seems never to end.

Defense of our Nation is important, however, we must not support only one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. The CBC budget makes tough choices that result in a fiscally and morally responsible budget that will fund essential programs and services vital to our communities and the American people as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black Caucus Budget Substitute for FY2009.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen to my good friends about the tax cuts that they believe will generate happiness in America. I want to remind my friends that the last 8 years have been governed by a Republican administration that has had as the definition of their viability in this country that they are the big tax cutters. And they're right. If you're making a million dollars or you're Warren Buffet, you're celebrating and dancing in the streets. That's the tax cuts that my friend is talking about. But if you're hardworking, middle class Americans that have looked toward the dream that Americans have offered, those who built cars with their hands or drive trucks, teachers and nurses, the very people who made America great, the kind of salt of the Earth that a Thomas Edison came from or a George Washington Carver, then you're not dancing in the street. In fact, you're trying to pick the pieces up and walk through the street.

Because if you look at what this administration has generated, $1.47 in 2001, now the average price per gallon $3.13, maybe going to $4, because right now the price per barrel of oil is $110 dollars a barrel. Not only hurting those hardworking Americans, but even in Texas, some of the refineries that hire blue collar workers can barely make it because they can't make a recovery when they're paying $110 a barrel for gas or for oil. They don't answer that question.

The Progressive budget is a budget that addresses the heartburn of America. What it says to his children and their grandchildren is that we believe in a domestic agenda that gets you out of the pits of depression and economic recession. We believe in helping children and parents work by improving and expanding early child care and increasing Head Start. If you've got a 1962 car, 1977, 1999, barely you can make it, trying to get to work and pay

child care. We get them out of the doldrums of the recession.

We understand that there are people who are now evicted who were homeowners. We give out 200,000 housing vouchers so that those in my district alone, 25,000 people on the waiting list for section 8 and other housing resources, not because they can't work, because there are no facilities for them and because the market is out of control. This is what the Progressive budget does.

And then it takes to the least of those, those children in the foster care system that circle around in the system. Who knows who they turn out to be. Maybe it's the unfortunate young men that found themselves on the streets of North Carolina to take the life of a coed.

There are tragedies out there, and this budget understands that investing in America and these workers will make a difference. That's why this budget supports an increase in the EITC to increase work incentives and reduce poverty. And it brings the troops home. That's where the money is going. And it doesn't stifle competition. It promotes the space program. It applauds science and math for young people to aspire to space, but it gives those whose pocket has a hole in it, it gives them opportunity.

It is a bill, a budget, that stamps out poverty, that recognizes that it is important to not ignore those who you can ignore because they're not in front of you.

I applaud Warren Buffett for his ingenuity and his greatness in terms of his economic prowess. But I also applaud Mrs. Jones who gets up every morning at 3 a.m. trying to get to work. This is what she's facing.

The domestic budget by the Progressive Caucus should be supported.

I rise today in support of the budget substitute offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I support this budget proposal because it represents the mainstream values of our great nation, providing crucial boosts in domestic spending by eliminating expenditure on outdated and obsolete military technologies.

second economic stimulus

This budget includes funding for a second economic stimulus package, designed to infuse $119.9 billion into our struggling economy. While I was very pleased to see the passage earlier this year of an economic stimulus package injecting $145.9 billion into the economy in 2008, I continue to be concerned about a number of important provisions that were omitted from the package. The ``Economic Stimulus #2'' package included in the Progressive Caucus budget includes more effective stimulus tools to meet the outstanding needs of the American people.

The Progressive Caucus budget extends Federal spending for unemployment insurance and food stamp benefits, and it increases Federal spending on Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) Medicaid payments to states. In addition, this budget recognizes the crisis posed by rising home foreclosure rates, and it provides home foreclosure relief and housing assistance. The Economic Stimulus #2 package also includes the creation of jobs repairing the nation's schools, transportation infrastructure, and public housing.

anti-poverty platform

In addition to the inclusion of the second economic stimulus package, this alternative budget is also unique because it includes a focused and concerted anti-poverty platform. The Progressive Caucus's ``Anti- Poverty and Opportunity Initiative'' is committed to cutting the poverty rate in America in half over the next ten years, and we will begin to do so under this budget. This alternative budget invests $73.05 billion in FY09 and increases to $129.3 billion in FY 18 for a sustained, coordinated public-private sector strategy.

poverty and the people

This morning Tavis Smiley shared with the Tom Joyner Morning Show, his thoughts and the American people's thoughts, on what is really going on in America. He shared how we have easily gotten side-tracked with nonessential staff and consultants to the Clinton and Obama campaigns and to the exploits of Governor Spitzer; all the while forgetting the issues of importance to the people.

Eradicating poverty is something the Progressive Caucus is addressing with its funding of anti-poverty legislation.

children and the budget

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, I am proud to support this budget alternative because it contains provisions designed to help our children succeed.

This budget improves and expands early child care and it increases Head Start funding. It will help parents and families by making the Child Tax Credit fully refundable and expanding the EITC for larger families. It also fully funds Community Development Block Grants and distributing grants to families with disabled members and as such promises to lift every child out of deep poverty. Furthermore, this budget provides for the improvement of Child Support Distribution as well as helping abused and neglected children by improving the Foster Care system.

Specifically the Progressive budget:

Iraq--projects complete U.S. military redeployment out of Iraq before the end of FY09--savings of at least $135 billion and replicated in subsequent years.

Target waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with Pentagon savings-- projects enactment of the Common Sense Budget Act, which would save at least $60 billion/year on largely obsolete Cold War-era weapons systems plus tens of billions more in waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD spending identified by the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, GAO-- savings of at least $687 billion over ten years;

Repeal of Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers--due to expire in 2010 regardless and beyond--savings of at least $222 billion;

Crackdown on corporate welfare--increased revenue of at least $18-50 billion/year throughout the next decade from the elimination of some of the many corporate tax loopholes throughout the tax code, including but not limited to special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and other extraction industries;

SMART Security Alternative to Preemption Doctrine--shifts some spending and increases other non-military spending to enhance homeland security and fight the root causes of terrorism--21st century diplomacy and meeting basic human needs (e.g. HIV/AIDS/TB/Malaria, universal basic education for all);

Global Warming and Energy Independence--funding for immediate, cost- effective steps to redress global warming and the rapid acceleration of renewable energy development and commercialization;

Education for All--fully fund the ESEA and IDEA and improve Teacher Corps and job training;

Medicare for All--affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans, starting with fully funding of the SCHIP program to ensure that every American child eligible is covered for basic health insurance;

Guaranteed Veterans' Health Care--ensure whatever federal funding is needed to provide health care (including mental health care) for All America's veterans (including but not limited to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations;

Fairness for Middle-Class--increase funding to protect fundamental worker rights, enforce fair credit and lending practices, and promote livable wages and safe workplaces;

Renew the Social Contract and 21st Century Safety Net--substantially increase funding for decent affordable housing, anti-hunger programs, and more quality child care for low-income and impoverished Americans (including Hurricane Katrina victims); and

Rebuild America's Communities--increase funding for Community Development Block Grants, Hurricane Katrina relief and reconstruction, community policing, and priority clean-up of leaking underground storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of nearly half of all Americans--a down payment on the implementation of other urgently needed environmental justice programs.

Pentagon and Defense Spending

The Progressive Caucus Budget will be the only budget substitute offered in this debate that will actually cut even one penny from the Pentagon budget below the full amount that President Bush requested for Fiscal Year 2009--a 7.4 percent increase boost over last year (not counting Iraq and Afghanistan operations).

unified security budget

If Congress fully funds President Bush's military budget request of $707 billion (including Iraq operations more accurately at $170 billion and Afghanistan operations) for next fiscal year, our Nation will spend more on our armed forces next year than at any time since World War II. As Bush administration officials defend their latest defense spending request before congressional committees, they and their supporters are also arguing for a substantial increase above this amount in future years, even as they disingenuously project spending on the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to go down.

A consistent theme of these presentations is that military spending currently represents a relatively low percentage of our national Gross Domestic Product. We should spend more, according to this argument, because we can. The fallacy of this argument is readily apparent as we fall deeper into debt.

The Bush Administration's national security doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, drawn up before the current wars were launched, prescribes an expansive, global role for the U.S. military, one that even current levels of spending and manpower don't come close to covering. After five years of failed tests, it's time to ask: Does the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare and its costs make sense? What we must ask ourselves is does it make us safer and more secure?

No Member of this Congress can claim credibly to be fiscally responsible and not tackle head-on the soaring, unsustainable financial costs of the Iraq debacle. Accordingly, we hope virtually all of our Republican colleagues and most Blue Dog Democrats will stop paying for this foreign policy disaster with a credit card that seemingly has no limits.

Savings

The Progressive Caucus Budget is the most transparent and accurate, when it comes to scoring the fiscal impact of on-going U.S. military operations in Iraq. We can save at least $135 billion if we end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq by the end of FY09.

The Progressive budget will save at least $135 billion over the subsequent nine fiscal years if we change the Bush policy, end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, don't establish permanent military bases in Iraq, and bring virtually all U.S. troops and military contractors no later than September 30, 2009.

Let me state that we already approved $70 billion of the $170 billion in President Bush's supplementary request for FY08. The remainder to be voted upon in April 2008 or soon thereafter should be strictly fenced, so that it can only be used for the safe and orderly redeployment of U.S. troops and military contractors.

Cutting Outdated and Unneeded Weapons Systems ($60 Billion/Year)

The Defense Department is wrought with waste, fraud, and abuse as it continues to spend in excess of $60 billion a year on holdover Cold War era weapons systems.

It's time that we bring some common sense back to the budget process and see to it that the basic human needs of all Americans come before the needs of the military industrial complex. The Progressive Caucus budget targets weapons programs that are either outdated or poorly conceived from the very beginning for elimination. Despite what a handful of giant defense contractors would have us believe, this inexcusable waste actually makes us less safe.

Combating Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria ($5.412 billion)

It is also in our national security interest for America to do more to meet the world's growing humanitarian crises. Let me cite just one example from our Progressive Caucus Budget.

Over the last five years the United States has achieved significant progress in fighting the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Direct funding provided to developing countries heavily impacted by HIV/AIDS through the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has supported treatment for over 1.45 million people with life saving anti-retroviral medications.

Additionally, U.S. contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria have supported AIDS treatment for another 1.4 million people, while also providing treatment for tuberculosis to over 3.3 million people, and distributing 46 million insecticide treated bed nets to protect against malaria.

In line with pending legislation in the House and Senate to reauthorize the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and to continue U.S. involvement with the Global Fund, this increase in funding will fully fund our efforts to combat the global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria pandemics for the next five years.

This increase in funding will help reach the goal of preventing 12 million new HIV infections; treating at least 3 million people living with HIV/AIDS--including 450,000 children; providing care for 12 million individuals affected by HIV/AIDS--including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children in communities affected by HIV/AIDS; and training and retaining at least 140,000 new health care professionals for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care.

This overall level of funding will fundamentally help our programs achieve sustainability as we increase program linkages and strengthen country ownership of these important initiatives.

Investing in clean renewable energy sources

If we want a more peaceful, secure world, then America must act with a sense of urgency to end our growing dependency upon imported oil and bring on line the full range of renewable energy technologies. We need a national commitment to accelerate the development and commercialization of renewable energy sources on the scale of the Manhattan Project during World War II or the moon shot of the 1960s. That is what we provide in the Progressive Caucus Budget.

It calls for spending $30 billion/year for the next decade to create 3 million new, clean energy jobs to free America from foreign oil dependence. We want to reinvest in the competitiveness of American industry, rebuild our cities, create good jobs for working families, and ensure good stewardship of both our national economy and the environment we share with the rest of the world.

Infrastructure needs

Our Nation faces a crumbling transportation infrastructure that is being asked to handle ever-increasing loads. Between 1955 and 2005, the U.S. population grew by 130 million to 295 million. Over the next 50 years it is expected to grow by 140 million to 435 million. Over the next 30 years, 88 percent of that growth will occur in the south and west. By 2030, the population of people over 65 will have grown from 35 million to 70 million. More than 70 percent of the Nation's population growth and 80 percent of its economic growth are expected to take place in metropolitan areas. At the same time, rural States will face the enormous cost of preserving the network of roads they have built over the past 80 years. Congestion on our Nation's highways gets worse by the year as funding fails to keep pace.

The Progressive Caucus Budget reverses this trend with additional transportation funding over a ten-year period to strengthen our infrastructure and provide millions of new construction jobs. The Federal Highway Trust Fund is facing shortfalls that need to be met and this Budget addresses those needs by funding the gap between what we need to maintain the current system versus the degradation that is projected over the life of this Budget.

Transportation Stimulus ($18 billion in FY09)

Every billion dollars spent on infrastructure creates 42,000 new jobs. States have identified 3,000 projects (see below) that could be up and running in 30-90 days for a total cost of $18 billion dollars. In a time when the economy is in trouble due to the over-inflated price of housing and the sub-prime mortgage market, the people in most need of jobs are construction workers. Funding transportation projects puts these people to work, in good paying jobs, which serve an overall benefit to the economy.

As a woman, a mother, a Member of Congress, and the Progressive Caucus, I am proud of the initiatives taken by the Progressive Caucus and morally compelled to support this budget.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Woolsey for their steadfast commitment to addressing the concerns of the most heavily impacted Americans in this most disruptive economic season.

Let me remind my friends that we are speaking of a Congress Democratically led for a little over a year. In that time frame, we have, in fact, increased the minimum wage. We have waged a valiant fight for the Children's Health Insurance Program to insure 10 million children.

But what you have seen that has occurred, if you will, under this administration, which is really the definition of this Republican minority, they are the residents on the ship captained by this administration. So if they want to talk about what burdens are falling on the American people, the Democratic House and Senate leadership is no more than a year, but the helm of this government has been captained by a Republican administration. And we can clearly see that a surplus existed under the past administration, under the Clinton administration; but under this administration not only have we eaten up the surplus, thrown hardworking Americans under the bus, but it is growing and growing and growing. Now, that is with the so-called tax cuts that this administration insists on making permanent, that the Progressive budget recognizes cannot continue to eat away in the pockets of those who go out and work every day.

And to my good friend on the earmarks, let me suggest to him that he might read some of the studies that say that earmarks are fairly distributed.

This is the cause of our depression. The Progressive budget should be supported.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Madam Speaker, listening to this discussion and the minority whip, as we have gathered a number of overlays of a discussion, people who are frustrated by the idea of a secret session.

Mr. Majority Leader, I am always interested in Members having the full understanding of the challenges that they face. It is important to know that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Intelligence Committee made every opportunity for Members to engage in materials or to utilize materials that they might find helpful in this discussion on the FISA bill. Certainly members of the two committees, of which I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, had intense opportunity and, of course, meetings in the appropriate place to be able to garner information.

To the minority whip, I think what I have heard from Members is a degree of confusion and opposition at the same time. We do understand that majority leader has been most gracious in cooperating with Members who are unready, but our difficulty is that it seems as if it is a tool to delay our full discussion on FISA.

I would ask the first question of whether that is the case. Then the other part of it is: There are a number of Members who have already indicated that they will not be present. I am disappointed in that, not in the Members, but in their concern of being held accountable when they debate the question on the floor tomorrow as to why they have said a statement or not said a statement, whether it's relevant or whether it is in this discussion today.

The first question: Is this a tool to delay us from the ultimate business that the people of America want us to engage in is to pass a FISA bill from this floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Majority Leader, on a very detailed explanation of why we should do this; however, there are gaping holes in the explanation of why we should do this, the timing of it. I think you are being enormously cooperative. I think it's important for the minority that ask for a privilege to be given a privilege.

Mr. Leader, I am concerned, if I might yield to you again, the two- edged sword that Members want to be vigorous in their discussion and want to be open minded, if they participate in this closed session, closed to the American people, the lights out, in essence, questions about the constitutionality, not because it might not have that basis, but others may question it because it is so unique, three times since 1825.

What is the standard, what is the criteria for Members' discussion in a closed session and then the Member going to the floor tomorrow and wanting to be within the realm of the rules of debate tomorrow, want to make the right decision, and now may be caught in a two-edged sword?

It should not be that a Member has to not come tonight to be fully briefed, as Mr. Blunt seems to think we need to be, and then be in the crosshairs tomorrow when we need to have a full debate in front of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, this point was made earlier, but I don't think that it has been clearly enunciated for Members. What you are suggesting is that Members can participate in this discussion. Unfortunately, closed to the American people sounds ominous, and it is unfortunate that we have reached this point, because I do believe that Members have the individual opportunity to visit the Intelligence information, as was made possible by both the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee.

But I think it's important to note that a Member could be on the floor this evening and review materials and be in debate, be on the floor tomorrow and say, in my studied opinion on the discussions of last evening, I believe so and so, meaning that I think this FISA bill is solid on its four corners, it is protected, it is constitutional, it protects those individuals covered by it, it gives the American people the sense of national security but also the protection of their civil liberties.

They will at least be able to refer in that general term, is that my understanding? They are not completely silenced from even referring to the fact that they were in a secret session last evening or they were looking at materials in a secret condition.

I am happy to yield.

I yield to the minority whip.

Reclaiming my time, I want it to be clear that a Member can rise on the floor and say, having been in a secret session last evening, not recounting what was in the secret session, but I find that my position remains the same in my support of the bill or my opposition to the bill. One could say that.

Members are going to be coming to the floor and some Member may want to say tomorrow that they were here. They would not be reciting what they heard. They would simply say what they heard did not move them or it moved them. Can someone not say tomorrow they were in the session without recounting what you heard?

Having not been in a session, Members don't know the parameters. Minimally they can say they were here, and what they heard, which they don't recount; they can proceed in their debate on how they review the bill. But they don't recount what was heard.

I yield.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to Mr. Hoyer.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I indicate to the majority leader and to the minority whip just the discussion here this evening highlights, one, the collegiality of the relationship and the effort, Mr. Leader, you are making, and you are to be commended.

But it also highlights the constitutional weakness, if you will, of the understanding of the Members and the whole question of what we are doing before the American public in a secret session.

I would like to simply say to the American public it is not that we are denying you the opportunity to be fully informed. It is my understanding that Members are asking to debate information that may be classified or secret. Whether this is the right approach, I take great question to this, and would rather it not be.

I think all Members have had access to materials. They can study the FISA bill. The good news is that the American people will have a FISA bill tomorrow passed by this House.

I have a continuing reservation. However, at this time I will withdraw my reservation acknowledging that this is both a unique challenge that we are being offered and that it is possible that there is a better way. But I hope the debate tomorrow, in front of the eyes of the American people, will be vigorous and honest and straightforward and that a bill will be passed.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5563, the ``Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'' or the ``GIVE Act.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congresswoman McCarthy for introducing this important legislation, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman George Miller, for his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation came to the floor last week as H.R. 2857. It was a good bill then but it now an even better piece of legislation.

The ten amendments that were incorporated into the current bill before this chamber provide: (1) greater integration of funding; (2) strengthens the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, RSVP; and (3) more support for our military families and veterans.

This legislation will make vital strides toward expanding and improving key community service programs, including AmeriCorps, VISTA, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America. The GIVE Act works to ensure that volunteers, and the organizations that support them, will receive the resources that they need to continue their vital work in our communities.

Today's legislation embodies the altruistic spirit that has made our Nation great. Great numbers of Americans donate their time and their unique skills and gifts to our cities and communities, without any expectation of compensation or material reward. According to a 2005 study, 29 percent of the American public, or about 65.4 million people, had volunteered in the past year.

This legislation engages our youth and fosters a sense of civic duty, which is why I was so pleased to see Section 1202 of this legislation, which gives special consideration to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. I want to thank Representative McCarthy and Representative Miller for allowing me to add to this great bill. By adding predominately minority community colleges to the list of those to receive special consideration, we help so many more students who have a commitment to service.

Our community colleges are growing as many of our returning veterans, single parents, and seniors desire to make a change in their living circumstances and simply cannot afford traditional higher education. A sense of civic engagement is not fostered only among students at Harvard and Berkeley; it is also found among students at community colleges like Houston Community College and North Harris College. I thank the chairman for recognizing this needed addition and incorporating it into the manager's amendment.

The GIVE Act would:

(1) increase the number of AmeriCorps volunteers from 75,000 to 100,000 by 2012;

(2) increase stipends for AmeriCorps volunteers from $4,725 to $5,225 by 2012;

(3) promote recruitment of disadvantaged youth, baby-boomers, and veterans into national and community service opportunities;

(4) create an AmeriCorps Alumni Reserves Network aimed at tapping into the skills and experience of alumni volunteers, with a particular focus on assisting during emergencies or natural disasters; and

(5) constructs an Energy Conservation Corps, which will address our Nation's energy and transportation infrastructure needs while providing work and service opportunities.

I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to be obstructionists to legislation that engages our youth, strengthens disaster and emergency preparedness, and invests in our volunteer and service organizations with appropriate funding. This bipartisan effort needs to be supported.

I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will add service before self to our leaders of tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1036, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, introduced by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Chairman Spratt.

This Rule will allow this body to debate the economic goals and policies of this great Nation. At a time, when this country is on the verge of a recession and the housing market is at one of its worst points in history, there is little else that is as important as our Nation's fiscal security.

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the maintenance of historically Black Colleges and Universities. This budget provides greater funding to our Nation's schools and colleges.

We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in the physical health of our citizens. This budget will properly fund SCHIP, to help one of our most vulnerable populations--children. Our President proclaims his support for securing our Nation's current and future economic success. However, it is our children that will bring forth a successful future. We need to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with their physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when they are sick, will not be in anyone's classroom.

For African Americans, health and education concerns spill beyond budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over 87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.

The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the number of young people in college, particularly in the African- American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities.

Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode. The gross federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the history books. During the seven years of the current Administration, the government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's history.The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that brought us to this point.

The amount of foreign debt has doubled since 2001, with most of this increased debt purchased by foreign lenders. Since 2001, the increases in foreign holdings of Treasury securities account for over 80 percent of the newly accumulated public debt--a trend that has more than doubled foreign holding of Treasury securities.

This high level of indebtedness to foreign investors heightens the economy's exposure to potential instability with additional burdens on our children and grandchildren.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to claim that the budget resolution being considered on the floor this week raises taxes, when in fact, the budget resolution does not raise taxes by one penny. The budget resolution accommodates tax cuts and indeed prioritizes tax cuts that would benefit middle-income families, while ensuring that the burden of paying for the tax cuts will not fall undeservedly on our future generations.

Section 501 of the budget resolution specifically calls for additional middle-income tax relief subject to the pay-as-you-go rule, including but not limited to:

AMT relief (both immediate/temporary, and more permanent reform measures);

Extension of ``middle-class'' elements of 2001 tax cuts: child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent bracket;

Eliminating the estate tax on all but a minute fraction of estates;

Extension of the research and experimentation tax credit;

Extension of the deduction for state and local taxes;

Extension of small business expensing;

Enactment of a tax credit for school construction bonds; and

Tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy which are accommodated in a separate deficit-neutral reserve fund.

The budget resolution honors PAYGO and the new House rules on using reconciliation in a fiscally responsible way. By abiding by the pay-as- you-go principle, we immediately begin digging our way out of the mountains of debt that have accumulated as a result of the Bush Administration's fiscal policies.

The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate PAYGO and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.

The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budget actually calls for the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and not make the deficit worse.

This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is balanced fiscally and morally.

It does not sacrifice the many programs and services that this Nation needs for a war that the President seems never to end.

Defense of our Nation is important; however, we must not support only one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1036 and the Democratic Budget for FY2009.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1036 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before

consideration of any order of business other than one motion

that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a

procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign

intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment

thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the

Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate

amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without

intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and

the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

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

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

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

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

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

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

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

control the consideration of the subject before the House

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

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

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

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

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

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

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

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

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

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

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

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

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

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

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

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

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

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

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

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

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

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

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

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

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

pending business.''

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

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

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

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

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

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

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

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I particularly thank him for his work and for the work of the Budget Committee and I look forward to a bipartisan, cooperative effort towards the agenda that all of us are committed to, and that is a budget that responds to the needs of the American people.

And so I think it is important to at least address what I think as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the committees dealing with our judiciary issues in this Nation and foreign affairs to be able to at least assess what I think the Budget Committee attempted to do, and that is to cure the ills here in America.

One of the ills is to highlight where we are today with this number one issue that I hear about in my district in Houston and all over America which is the loss of jobs. And 63,000 jobs were lost last month. When we look at the analysis, we can see that, unfortunately, the present administration is number two in the infusion into the job market. And that is the testimony that Americans will make about when they think the economy is churning. This administration falls as number two in the lack of job creation. So this budget attempts to be a job creator, and I think it does it very well. How does it do that? It does it by giving relief to the middle class, so even as they are struggling with loss of jobs, we are recognizing there is a value to giving tax relief.

So someone got up on the floor and talked about we are, in essence, spending dollars. I must say that I hope we can find a way to bring our troops home. That is $120 billion. But this budget is the kind of tax cut that I want to endorse. It is, of course, AMT relief. Let me find out my friends on the other side of the aisle that want to get rid of the alternative minimum tax relief that is given and don't want to give it to those middle class, hardworking Americans.

An extension of the child tax credit which benefits, again, working Americans. The marriage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, estate tax relief, research and experimentation tax credit. I believe that today Bill Gates was indicating how many jobs are generated as we promote R&D research.

Deduction for State and local sales tax. States like the State of Texas, how many of you want to reject that kind of relief for hardworking Texans and others who have State and local sales tax and cannot get deductions? This is what the Democratic budget stands for.

Small business expensing. I consider small businesses the backbone of America. They create jobs. They created jobs in Houston. They created jobs in Jackson, Mississippi. They created jobs in Utah and South Carolina and New York and California. That is the crux of what this budget stands for.

At the same time, of course, let me suggest to my colleagues that it does not ignore the relief that we need in education and infrastructure. It invests in highways, water, and other infrastructure. It protects concerns that I have like NASA and the Children's Health Insurance Program and like the relief for education and many of the programs that provide relief for poor and minority children.

Let me conclude by saying this is the kind of budget that I want to affirm, a working America budget, a middle class budget. This is a good budget. I know we can do this in a bipartisan way. Support this budget and support America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 312, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, introduced by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Chairman Spratt.

I wish to thank our great Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, for never letting us forget that we are here for one reason only, and that is to address the real needs and priorities of Americans.

Finally, let me thank the remarkable leadership team which has worked long, hard, and tireless to keep us informed, cooperative, and united in our resolve to do the necessary work to make America better.

Our Republican colleagues ask if we can afford the Democratic budget . . . and I ask--How we can afford to continue to cheat the American people? What we can not afford is to continue with the Bush Administration's fiscal irresponsibility which has led us to almost $9.6 trillion dollar deficit. What we can not afford is to hear rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about balancing the debt and curbing taxes while the administration they support continues to dig deeper and deeper into the deficit. Let's not ask how we can afford to support the Democratic budget, let's ask how we can not afford to support it.

Education

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This budget provides greater funding to our nation's schools and colleges. The increased spending can and should be used for several purposes, including Head Start, Title I Compensatory Education program, and job training and national service programs. It could also be used to increase the Federal share of the cost for educating handicapped children, and to help improve access to colleges, and broadening access to Hispanic Serving and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 953 ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Representative Joe Knollenberg. This praiseworthy legislation will honor the lives, the work, and the memory of the countless men and women who everyday sacrifice their lives for our freedom.

Our great Nation officially celebrates and honors the accomplishments and sacrifices of veterans, patriots, and leaders who fought for freedom, but does not yet officially pay tribute to those who currently serve in the Armed Forces.

Accordingly, I praise those individuals who currently continue to accept the challenges posed by fighting for our liberty. Let us look to the sky to honor the memory of these heroes who give their lives for the foundations of our democracy. These individuals represent the best in all of us and it is in their memory that we should devote ourselves to continuing what they began. By humbling ourselves and reserving a moment of silence, we give reverence and recognition for those who make the ultimate sacrifice. Everyday, the men and women of our Armed Forces commence on a risky journey that many brave ones travel. In passing this important legislation, we effectively recall the purpose for which our elite Armed Forces are so dedicated.

Mr. Speaker, there are currently more than 1,500,000 active and reserve component members of the Armed Forces serving the United States in support and defense of the values and freedom that all Americans cherish. Our Nation's brave men and women in uniform are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice in order to ensure the freedoms enjoyed by every American remain intact. The debt we owe our Nation's armed services cannot be quantified, the respect and admiration felt by all Americans hardly expressed; it is imperative that we show the men and women who offer their lives each day to protect our own just how much their courage means to us.

Mr. Speaker, words cannot convey or adequately repay the debt that is owed. We cannot sufficiently articulate the feelings of sorrow that are universally felt; however, we can pay those men and women of the Armed Forces no greater tribute than to honor their sacrifice with a moment of silence. The service that these brave individuals provide is priceless and will never go unrecognized.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and, in so doing, giving our men and women in uniform the respect and recognition they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, if you ask Mr. and Mrs. America who are in the rural hamlets and the urban cities across America, they will tell you whether there is a recession or not. If you ask the automobile dealers, the home builders, if you ask the individuals who are attempting to put their children through college or even to make ends meet, they will tell you that bad news is already here; 63,000 jobs were lost last month.

I am glad the Democrats are taking the opportunity to strengthen our economy and create jobs. Democratic leaders last week held a second economic forum. The forum convened national experts and talked about how we can create jobs. The New Direction Congress has already passed a bipartisan economic stimulus of which thousands of Americans will be receiving a payment because of the leadership of our Democratic majority. We are helping to create 500,000 jobs. But it is well to recognize that this administration just last month lost 63,000 jobs.

What we need to do is bring our troops home, lower health care costs, and increase health care quality. We need to vote in the CHIP bill and stop the President's veto. We need to ensure that we lower energy prices through alternative fuels by creating hundreds of thousands of new green jobs. We have got to make college more affordable and K-12 classrooms more successful.

We can empower America with our own initiative and our own genius. But we cannot do it if we have an administration that doesn't listen. Sixty-three thousand jobs lost tells the story, and Mr. and Mrs. America say, ``wake up and provide an opportunity for Americans.'' They want the Democrats to lead and to be able to create the opportunity for the economic engine that will save jobs and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5563, the ``Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act' or the `GIVE Act'.'' I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman McCarthy, for introducing this important legislation, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman George Miller, for his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation came to the floor last week as H.R. 2857. It was a good bill then but now it is an even better piece of legislation.

The ten amendments that were incorporated into the current bill before this chamber provide:

(1) greater integration of funding, (2) strengthens the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and (3) more support for our military families and veterans.

This legislation will make vital strides toward expanding and improving key community service programs, including AmeriCorps, VISTA, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America. The GIVE Act works to ensure that volunteers, and the organizations that support them, will receive the resources that they need to continue their vital work in our communities.

Today's legislation embodies the altruistic spirit that has made our nation great. Great numbers of Americans donate their time and their unique skills and gifts to our cities and communities, without any expectation of compensation or material reward. According to a 2005 study, 29 percent of the American public, or about 65.4 million people, had volunteered in the past year.

This legislation engages our youth and fosters a sense of civic duty. Which is why I was so pleased to see Section 1202 of this legislation, which gives special consideration to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. I want to thank Representative McCarthy and Representative Miller for allowing me to add to this great bill. By adding predominately minority community colleges to the list of those to receive special consideration, we help so many more students who have a commitment to service.

Our community colleges are growing as many of our returning veterans, single parents, and senior desire to make a change in their live circumstances and simply cannot afford traditional higher education. A sense of civic engagement is not fostered only among students at Harvard and Berkeley; it is also found among students at community colleges like Houston Community College and North Harris College. I thank the Chairman for recognizing this needed addition and incorporating it into the Manager's Amendment.

The GIVE Act would:

(1) increase the number of AmeriCorps volunteers from 75,000 to 100,000 by 2012; (2) increase stipends for AmeriCorps volunteers from $4,725 to $5,225 by 2012; and (3) promote recruitment of disadvantaged youth, baby-boomers, and veterans into national and community service opportunities; (4) create an AmeriCorps Alumni Reserves Network aimed at tapping into the skills and experience of alumni volunteers, with a particular focus on assisting during emergencies or natural disasters; and (5) constructs an Energy Conservation Corps, which will address our nation's energy and transportation infrastructure needs while providing work and service opportunities.

I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to be obstructionists to legislation that engages our youth, strengthens disaster and emergency preparedness, and invests in our volunteer and service organizations with appropriate funding. This Bipartisan effort needs to be supported.

I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will add service before self to our leaders of tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 895, establishing within the House of Representatives an Office of Congressional Ethics, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Capuano. This important legislation will establish an independent Office of Congressional Ethics in the House of Representatives that will address concerns about House transparency and accountability.

Ethics and legal scandals plagued the Republican Congress. The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw during the 109th Congress resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those involving Jack Abramoff.

But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into signed conference reports in the dead of night.

The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exits polls indicated that 74 percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very important issue in their choice at the polls.

Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one of the top priorities of the new direction Congress. That is why as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this critical election, Democrats offered and passed last year an aggressive ethics reform package. Today, we are here to pass yet another piece of ethics legislation, illuminating that this Democratic Congress has nothing to hide. We are committed to accountability and financial transparency and as such will continue to pass ethics legislation until we are satisfied that any and all ethics concerns have been addressed. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress of the United States.

This important legislation amends Rule XXVI, Financial Disclosure, of the Rules of the House by requiring members of the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics to file annual financial disclosure reports with the Clerk of the House. It furthermore Amends Rule XI, Procedures of Committees and Unfinished Business, to permit the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to undertake an investigation upon receipt of a report regarding a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics and sets forth provisions concerning the public disclosure of board findings. The rules outlined within this legislation state that the board is directed to address any joint allegation within 7 calendar days, ensuring that any and all allegations are expediently handled. Through the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics, the House will significantly increase the transparency and accountability of its ethics enforcement process through greater timely reporting by a body of individuals who are independent from the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that the Members of this House, along with all of the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming the Presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow Americans, our long National nightmare is over.'' By his words and deeds, President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment to the national interest.

This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public confidence in this institution, we must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most responsive Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special interests. To do that, we must establish an independent Office of Congressional Ethics, and as such I offer my whole-hearted support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H. Res. 895 and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2857, the ``Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'' or the ``GIVE Act.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congresswoman McCarthy for introducing this important legislation, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman George Miller, for his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will make vital strides toward expanding and improving key community service programs, including AmeriCorps, VISTA, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America. The GIVE Act works to ensure that volunteers, and the organizations that support them, will receive the resources that they need to continue their vital work in our communities.

Today's legislation embodies the altruistic spirit that has made our Nation great. Great numbers of Americans donate their time and their unique skills and gifts to our cities and communities, without any expectation of compensation or material reward. According to a 2005 study, 29 percent of the American public, or about 65.4 million people, had volunteered in the past year.

This legislation engages our youth and fosters a sense of civic duty. At many of our Historically Black Colleges and Universities the idea of continual service to community is embedded into the very walls of the institution. Right in this city, Howard University has symbolically and yet openly stated its belief in service. Veritas and Utilitas, Truth and Service is on the very seal of the University. Institutions such as Texas Southern University and Texas A&M University continue to provide our young people with leadership skills that are grounded in service and compassion for their fellow man.

That is why I was so pleased to see Section 1202 of this legislation, giving special consideration to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. I want to thank Chairman Miller for allowing me to add to this great bill. By adding predominately minority community colleges to the list of those to receive special consideration, we help so many more students who have a commitment to service.

Our community colleges are growing as many of our returning veterans, single parents, and seniors desire to make a change in their life circumstances and simply cannot afford traditional higher education. A sense of civic engagement is not fostered only among students at Harvard and Berkeley; it is also found among students at community colleges like Houston Community College and North Harris College. I thank the Chairman for recognizing this needed addition and incorporating it into the Manager's Amendment.

The GIVE Act would: (1) increase the number of AmeriCorps volunteers from 75,000 to 100,000 by 2012; (2) increase stipends for AmeriCorps volunteers from $4,725 to $5,225 by 2012; (3) initiate a ``Summer of Service'' program for young people from middle school through high school to give them the opportunity to spend a summer in service to their community, for which they would receive a $500 stipend for college or for college preparation; and (4) create an AmeriCorps Alumni Reserves Network aimed at tapping into the skills and experience of alumni volunteers, with a particular focus on assisting during emergencies or natural disasters.

I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will add service before self to our leaders of tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate the positions I would have taken on votes missed because I was unavoidably detained in my district, and, lastly, I was unavoidably detained at a meeting with the Dialogue on Diversity.

On rollcall vote No. 90, H.R. 816, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 89, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 88, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 87, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 86, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 85, I would have voted ``aye''; and to the Inslee-Sarbanes amendment No. 11 to H.R. 2857, I was unavoidably detained with Dialogue on Diversity today and I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my positions on these legislative initiatives be placed in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Education Committee for capturing the spirit of America in H.R. 2857, Generations Invigorating Volunteerism Education Act. I thank my colleague Congresswoman McCarthy for introducing the legislation, and again say that there have been so many success stories that all of us could cite by referring to AmeriCorps, Vista, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America.

This bill, of course, that we have just been debating works to ensure that volunteers and the organizations that support them will receive the resources that they need to continue their vital work. Many of them engage with other nongovernmental organizations or nonprofits. Some of them work with Habitat for Humanity. Many of them you will find in the Nation's urban and rural schoolhouses. You will find them as role models. You will find them as those who get on the front line when there is Hurricane Katrina or Rita. You find them in institutions such as Texas Southern University and Texas A&M.

This is an important legislative initiative. I am delighted to have had an amendment added to this bill and I am delighted to be one of the supporters of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained in my district on February 28 and March 4 and missed the following rollcall votes:

Rollcall vote No. 90, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 89, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 88, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 87, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 86, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 85, I would have voted ``aye.''

Today, I was detained as well with the Dialogue on Diversity, and therefore on the Inslee-Sarbanes amendment to H.R. 2857, I would have voted ``aye.''