Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and the Republican Leader Mr. Boehner to congratulate the Congressional Management Foundation on its 30th anniversary. CMF has had a widespread and positive impact on this institution, and we are proud to applaud its efforts over the decades in applying its motto, ``Good government through good management.''

Founded in 1977, the Congressional Management Foundation is a non- profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to serving the Members of the House and Senate, as well as the institutional offices of the Congress, through staff management training, office facilitation services, publications on best practices, and technology research.

The idea for CMF was born out of the rapid growth of congressional offices in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Offices no longer were comprised of a single Member with a few support staff. Citizens had come to rely on Congress for a vast array of constituent services and expected rapid responses to questions and opinions on pending legislation.

Tom Bedell came to Washington to work in Congress in the 1970's to work for his father, Congressman Berkley Bedell from Iowa. He saw that, while Members of Congress could be brilliant legislators and great communicators, they were often overwhelmed by the management challenges of running up to four offices and a staff of twenty. Along with Dr. Len Hirsch, an organizational development consultant, Tom founded CMF and they began offering programs on enhancing efficiencies in office budgeting, managing constituent correspondence, and hiring staff.

Working with staff organizations such as the House Chiefs of Staff Association, CMF expanded its programs in the 1980's and 1990's, training hundreds of senior managers on everything from how to perform high quality personnel reviews to how to conduct difficult conversations with their staff and their bosses. With the help of CMF's strategic planning services, scores of Members of Congress have clarified their goals, enhanced their effectiveness at serving constituents and improved staff morale.

CMF strives to help congressional offices get off on the right foot even before the swearing-in ceremony. In 1984, CMF wrote the first edition of Setting Course: A Congressional Management Guide. This book, which is revised for every Congress and distributed within days of the election, is now a staple for freshmen Members and veterans alike. They also produced a companion, Frontline Management: A Guide for Running Congressional District/State Offices. Additionally, for 20 years CMF has been offering an orientation program to introduce new senior staff to the basics of hiring staff, creating a budget and setting up an office while their bosses are struggling to learn the nuances of parliamentary procedure and committee assignments.

CMF was also the first organization to create salary and employment studies for Capitol Hill, providing Members and senior managers with useful benchmarks to aid in the office budgeting process.

In the last few years CMF has been an invaluable resource as Congress has adopted new technology to respond to the dramatic increase in communications and citizen advocacy as a result of the Internet. It partnered with distinguished universities, such as George Washington University, Harvard University, Ohio State University and the University of California-Riverside, to offer guidance on how to design congressional Web sites and be more responsive to constituents online. Their Gold Mouse Awards for superior Web sites have become coveted commodities on Capitol Hill.

Also in the last few years CMF has helped respond to a House request for perhaps one of its most important projects in its 30-year history: helping to design a 10-year information technology roadmap for the House of Representatives.

Thanks in part to CMF, Congress has a more professionalized workforce with better morale and performance. And the American people get a better government when our democratic institutions are more efficient and effective.

We thank all of the current and past supporters, leaders, and staff of the Congressional Management Foundation who believe in the Congress and the people who work here, and who feel that we truly can achieve ``good government through good management.'' We congratulate them on 3 decades of outstanding service to the Congress and the Nation. And we wish them success in the decades to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend of mine, Hal Bruno--an individual that most of you will know best for his 50-year career as a professional journalist whose integrity and trust earned him the respect and approbation of his peers and politicians alike. Today, however, I'd like to recognize another, perhaps lesser known, side of Hal--his more than 30-year commitment to the men and women of the fire service.

Recently, Hal Bruno announced that he was stepping down as Chairman of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, the organization established by the Congress to honor our fallen heroes and assist their families and coworkers. It was with deep regret that the board of directors accepted his resignation. Since 1993, Hal has served with distinction on the board of directors, the last seven as chairman. For Hal and his lovely wife, Meg, the Foundation is that ray of light that has guided family members of fallen firefighters through their dark journeys.

When a firefighter falls in the line of duty, Hal likens it to losing a family member. Long after the death, Hal has always been there to provide comfort and assistance to the family members, no matter how long it takes for them to regain their strength and move ahead with their lives. The Foundation and the fire service, itself, are fortunate to have had a leader with such compassion and dedication as my friend, Hal Bruno.

Always humble, Hal has always been one to credit the professional staff of the Foundation for the positive impact the Foundation has made on the people it serves--family members of our fallen heroes. But Hal, through his leadership, inspiration and selfless dedication--set the course of the Foundation in a new direction, resulting in a tremendous growth of the Foundation's programs during his years as chairman. Those of us involved with the fire service are pleased to hear that he will continue to serve as an active member of the board of directors.

To both Hal and Meg Bruno, I extend my personal thanks and the thanks and gratitude of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, for their dedication to our first responders, and, especially, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. I ask my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to Hal and congratulating him upon his retirement and a job well done.

I thank the Republican Whip.

On Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 2 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday there will be no votes in the House.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. We will consider H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. In addition, we hope to consider legislation regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There may well be other legislation as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, this bill was passed in the Senate a little over 2 weeks ago. Since that time we have had an extensive number of meetings, discussions. I'm hopeful, as you know, to have discussions with the whip, with the distinguished Republican whip, my friend, on this issue as well. I think both of us are going to be here tomorrow. We'll take that time perhaps to do that.

As I said, and I've said repeatedly, I think every Member of this House wants to pass legislation which will facilitate the interception of particularly foreign-to-foreign communications which may pose a danger to this country.

All of us are aware of the fact that technological changes have resulted in some questions being raised because of the fact that we have many of the communications coming through the United States. I frankly think, as the gentleman knows, there is really not a great deal of controversy or difference between the two Houses or between our two sides of the aisle on this issue. There's some differences, but they're not major differences. I think they can be addressed.

There are major differences with respect to the second title of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill which comes from the Senate which deals with retroactive immunity, which has nothing about prospective security but is obviously important for us to consider. We're also working on that as well, but I will tell the gentleman that we don't have agreement. But, as I said, I'm very hopeful that we will have legislation on the floor next week. I do not expect it to be, as the gentleman asked, the same bill that passed the House.

I thank my friend for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, both the RESTORE Act, which passed this House, and the Senate bill both are similar in giving prospective immunity to telecoms that voluntarily or pursuant to order cooperate with us in accomplishing that objective. We believe, of course, that FISA was established so that a court review on process would be appropriate to ensure, in fact, that the collection of information is on foreign-to-foreign.

We well understand that, as the DNI has indicated, prospectively you may not know so you need authorization. Our bill provides for that. The Senate bill provides for that. I really don't believe that is a major contention of the bill. That's prospectively.

A major contention is, which we believe has nothing to do with security, on what has been done, and, frankly, I'm not sure we know exactly what has been done. As you know, I've taken the opportunity to be up in the intelligence room, in the secure room, and go through the papers that have been provided. My own view is they're not dispositive of the issue; but irrespective of that, we're working on title II as well, and I look forward to having discussions on that with you as well.

If I might comment on that, as you know, from our perspective, this is one of the problems. This is a very serious, important bill. It's critical to the defense of our country. I want to see that facilitated. I think every Member on both sides of the aisle wants to see that facilitated, but there are serious issues. There are serious constitutional issues involved here.

That's why FISA was passed in 1978, very frankly, as a result of an administration that intercepted communications here domestically. You will recall that, I know, and a great concern about that. FISA was adopted by the Congress and signed by the President in an attempt to try to ensure that those kinds of things that happened in the early 1970s were not repeated by the intelligence community.

So these are serious issues. Unfortunately, the Senate which had our bill for 2\1/2\ months and had spent a lot of time considering a bill long before we passed our bill did not send us a bill until, as I said, about 14 days ago, and we have since that time, notwithstanding the fact we were on break, staff and Members have been working on that. As you know, we have invited the other side of the aisle, ranking members, to participate in that. Some have chosen not to, but we are hopeful that we can move ahead on this, and we hope there is room for positive resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I've had discussions recently with Secretary Gutierrez, with Ambassador Schwab and others, and Secretary Paulson, who have also discussed this issue with me and I know with you and with many others. This is an issue of importance. We think the discussions are ongoing. Hopefully, they will result in some fruitful resolution. That has not been the case at this point in time.

We did have, as you well know, a very significant interface with the administration last year in which I think a very positive result in terms of workers' rights and environmental concerns were addressed by us and by the administration. Unfortunately, we have not moved forward from that point on the other three agreements that were pending at that time, but I think that we will continue to have those discussions, hopefully positive and hopefully have some result.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 4, for morning-hour debate.

I was not planning to speak, but the previous speaker has done what this administration did a little earlier today and has been doing over the days. We call it fear-mongering, trying to stampede this Congress into doing something that is contrary to our oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States as well as defend our Nation from those who would harm our citizens and our country.

The gentleman's assertion that the intelligence community is not able to intercept communications to protect our country is not true. Anybody who heard his words and was concerned by his representations ought to be disabused of the fact of the accuracy of his assertions. In fact, the administration said that in a letter, a six-page letter, and within hours sent out an e-mail saying, No, we're wrong. Telephone companies are cooperating with us. We are able to intercept communications.

But what he also did not mention is that we passed a bill 2\1/2\ months ago, now 3 months ago, which would have provided the full authority the administration needed to continue doing what they needed to do. Without exception. Secondly, what he failed to say is that when the Senate failed to act for those 3 months, it was because the Republican Party in the Senate precluded that bill from moving forward. But he didn't represent that. And then they sent us the bill 2 days before a break was to be scheduled. That was considered, in my opinion, to try to preclude any further discussion on the issue. They believed they could do that by then appealing to the concerns, rightful concerns, of the American public that we continued to do everything necessary to keep them safe. That's the commitment of all 435 Members of this House. It's my commitment. I speak on behalf of my party, as majority leader of my party, with respect to that issue. Every Member wants to ensure.

What he did not tell you, however, was because we only had some 48 hours of session, because we wanted to give it consideration, and because the normal process is to have a conference between the two Houses if there are differences as there are between the two pieces of legislation, we said to all of the Republicans and to all of the Democrats, let us extend by 21 days the Protect America Act so that there is no question.

What the gentleman from Georgia did not tell you is that every Republican person voted against that extension. They voted against the extension, and then when it did not pass, they said, Oh, America is at risk. It is like the child who killed both his parents and said, Have pity on me. I'm an orphan. They refused to pass the very legislation which would have kept the act that they say is necessary in full effect.

The good news is that we have a statute on the books called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which provides the administration with every authority it needs, but what it requires the administration to do is come to the FISA Court and get approval. There is no backlog in that court. Not a second's backlog in that court. And administration officials have said we would not miss a beat in terms of our interception of communications. Administration officials have said that within minutes approval could be granted, and under the FISA Act, the administration can act and then get approval after the fact. So I'm not sure what the generals were talking about.

What the gentleman from Georgia did not mention as well is that we have been working every day since we left session on trying to reach a compromise so that we could move forward on this bill. We had a meeting this day to do that very thing, a meeting which was bipartisan. We had the administration involved. We are hopeful that we can reach agreement.

So I want to assure the American public that the leadership of this House is going to do everything in our power to ensure that we protect this Nation and our people and to defeat those who fashion themselves to be radical Islamic jihadist terrorists and ensure that they will be stopped, they will be caught, and that we will prevail in this war on terrorism.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, there are few Members on this floor whom I respect more than the gentleman who has just spoken. Jim McCrery from Louisiana is going to be a loss to this House and to our country. He is a thoughtful, fair, and considerate legislator. He represents his State well. He has represented this House well. And I congratulate him for his service. But people of goodwill can disagree, and I want to make an observation on this punitive measure.

In 2004, the Republicans passed a tax bill. Historically, manufacturers had gotten a tax break to incentivize keeping jobs here and trying to grow jobs in America. The oil companies were not included in that law, as the gentleman knows so well, but the Republicans added oil companies into the category of manufacturers. Now they are being taken out. So he says we added them in and now it would be unfair to take them out. They weren't in originally; we are taking them out.

Mr. Speaker, this important legislation is an explicit recognition that our great Nation must make critical investments today in the development of clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency; energy investments that will strengthen our national, economic, and environmental security for generations to come.

I appreciated Mr. McCrery's observation that part of this bill was a good bill. He disagrees with other parts. That's understandable. But we must simply begin to break our addiction to fossil fuels, not because the oil companies are bad. They're not. They produce a product that's absolutely essential and they create jobs, good-paying jobs. So this is not about trying to take it out on the oil companies, but it is to say that fossil fuels are a wasting resource. That is to say, we're going to use it up, it's going to go away, and we need to look to alternatives.

This morning's headline in the New York Times states that the harsh reality is ``Gas Prices Soar, Posing a Threat to Family Budget.'' The fact is the nationwide average for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.14 this week, an increase of 19 cents in just the last 14 days. Some energy experts fear gas prices could hit $4 a gallon by this spring. Diesel prices are hitting new records daily, and oil hit a record high of $100.88 a barrel on Tuesday.

This, again, is not about the bad oil companies. What this is about is America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and on oil generally. Either it's going away or we will be in the grasp of OPEC, of nations who are not particularly friendly to us: Venezuela; Saudi Arabia sometimes, sometimes not; Iraq; Iran; other oil-producing states that can go away in a second. We are vulnerable, and we need to look to alternatives. That's what this bill seeks to do.

To be clear, this legislation alone will not bring down gas prices. But it is a vital step forward and may bring down gas prices 3 years from now or 10 years from now or 15 years from now. This bill is nothing less than a critical investment in the low carbon economy of the future that will result in the creation of millions of new jobs.

It extends the production tax credit for wind, geothermal, and other renewables to 2011 and renews the investment tax credit for individual homeowners and businesses to maintain incentives for solar energy through the end of 2016. Without the prompt extension of these tax credits, renewable energy project work stoppages could cost 116,000 jobs at a time when we're trying to stimulate the economy.

Furthermore, this bill will spur the commercialization of the next generation of automobiles by establishing a $4,000 credit for the purchase of a plug-in hybrid. Tax credits, tax incentives, are to get something that you need and might not otherwise get unless you get an incentive. I'm going to speak to that with reference to the oil companies in just a second.

It will encourage investments in cleaner fuels, creating economic incentives to invest in biofuels, including biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. And it will close the so-called ``Hummer'' tax loophole, which encourages taxpayers to buy gas-guzzling SUVs. That makes no sense.

In addition, this legislation will create incentives for the construction of energy-efficient buildings and the retrofitting of existing homes, which will reduce pollution and energy use.

Finally, the energy conservation bonds included in this bill will spur investments in efficiency, create jobs, and reduce carbon emissions.

I would think all of those objectives are objectives that this House, in a bipartisan way, would seek to achieve.

Now, in keeping with this Democratic majority's commitment to fiscal

responsibility, this legislation will not add to the deficit. I will tell you that your previous bills dealing with tax incentives could not make that comment. Rather, the tax incentives contained in the bill are offset by repealing $18 billion in unnecessary tax subsidies over the next 10 years that otherwise will be enjoyed by the largest oil and gas companies in America. Mr. McCrery referenced a discussion about that.

Last year alone, the five largest oil companies had a combined profit of $123 billion. God bless them. But it only provokes this question: Do these companies need taxpayer subsidies to look for new product?

I'm a big proponent of the free market system. Supply and demand works. The demand for oil is high. The prices reflect that demand, and they are the highest they have been in history. They don't need any incentive to look for new product. The incentive is the free market system which is buying their product for the highest prices they have ever sold it. So it is foolish to ask the taxpayers to not only pay those high prices at the pump but also to pay additional taxes because the oil companies aren't paying the same kind of level of taxes that they are. Last year alone, as I said, they made the highest profits they have made.

The answer, of course, to my question, do they need incentives to get new product? They do not. They do not. There is not an oil company executive in the world who's going to say let's not look for new oil when their product is getting the highest prices they have gotten in history.

Even President Bush, and I want all my Republican friends to hear this. There aren't very many of them on the floor. There aren't very many Democrats on the floor. But I hope they are watching on television. President Bush, a former oil company executive, said in 2005, and I want you to hear this quote, George Bush, President of the United States, former oil executive, 2005: ``I will tell you, with $55 a barrel oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' I'm sure all of you got that. At $55 a barrel, the President of the United States said we don't need incentives for the companies to explore.

Prices now are almost 100 percent above that dollar figure which the President of the United States said would obviate the need for incentives. With the price of a barrel of oil hovering around $100, do we really believe that this incentive is justified? The President of the United States said no. Hopefully, this Congress today will say no.

This legislation is a thoughtful effort to set our Nation's energy priorities and thereby strengthen our national, economic, and environmental security.

Last year when we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, the President and Senate Republicans removed a package of economic incentives, including the extension of tax credits for wind and solar energy and biofuels. We must move towards those alternatives. With this bill, we continue the fight for this critical aspect of our energy policy.

I thank the chairman for his leadership on this very important piece of legislation, and I thank the Republican colleagues on the committee as well for working on this product.

We may have differences, but this is a critical issue for the future of our country and for generations yet to come. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, we have been considering for a number of years now the question of how we ensure that we have ethical conduct in this body, but more importantly, how we give confidence to the American people that we are handling their business in a fashion which they can trust and be proud of. It is a difficult effort.

We had scheduled for tomorrow a rule which would have established a process of access and oversight that many believe would be an improvement. The committee that was set up was chaired by Mr. Capuano, and Mr. Smith, Lamar Smith, was his ranking member or cochair.

Mr. Smith just an hour ago or so, or 2 hours ago, brought a new proposal, which we had not seen, to the Rules Committee. We have asked Mr. Capuano about that proposal. He has indicated that he wants an opportunity to review it because he had not seen it before.

In light of that, I have had discussions with the other side of the aisle with reference to a procedure in which we would not consider the rule that was proposed, the rules change that was proposed, tomorrow. We do expect to consider it soon, but not tomorrow.

Tomorrow, and I will be asking at the end of this for unanimous consent, I have discussed with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt doing the seven suspension bills. There are eight suspension bills scheduled for today. One of them is the Andean bill, which I think is not of any controversy, the 10-month extension on that bill. I will be asking for unanimous consent, therefore, for tomorrow to be a suspension day.

This will give Mr. Capuano and Mr. Smith the opportunity to discuss a new proposal which has been put on the table just this afternoon, and they will discuss that.

I know that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, have had discussions. I presume those discussions will continue.

So my expectation is tomorrow, after the unanimous consent, we will conclude this bill. We will then have no further business. We will have the Andean suspension bill. After the conclusion of the Andean suspension bill, we will have no further business for today that Members would be voting on. And then we would, tomorrow, consider the seven suspension bills, and my presumption is it will be a relatively early day tomorrow, Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to recognize motions for suspension of the rules tomorrow as though clause 1 of rule XV were in place. In other words, I'm asking for authority to have a suspension calendar tomorrow. Absent the unanimous consent, we would simply go to the Rules Committee and get a rule to do that.

The gentleman is absolutely correct. There are eight suspension bills, the Andean today, and we will do the balance of seven tomorrow. I believe it will be a relatively early day.

I yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, I will tell you, Members have expressed great concern that they didn't know about the proposals that were being made. My suggestion on both sides of the aisle is that we listen to these proposals as carefully as you are going to want to discuss them in the future.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Would the gentlelady, the sponsor of the motion to recommit, yield for a question?

I thank the gentlelady.

Would the gentlelady agree to a unanimous consent request to make your amendment a forthwith amendment so that it could be voted upon? My presumption is the gentlelady wants the amendment adopted, the gentlelady believes the majority of the House is for it. Would the gentlelady agree to such a unanimous consent?

Reclaiming my time, so it's more important to delay it than to adopt it now?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be amended by substituting the term ``promptly'' with the term ``forthwith.''

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Medicare Funding Warning Response Act of 2008 at the request of the President pursuant to section 803(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 which requires me to do so.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services submitted this proposed legislation to the House of Representatives on February 15, 2008.

The Medicare Modernization Act established a process requiring the President to propose and Congress to consider a legislative response to a Medicare funding warning. A Medicare funding warning is triggered if the Medicare Board of Trustees makes a determination in 2 consecutive years that general revenue Medicare funding is expected to exceed 45 percent of Medicare outlays for the current fiscal year or any of the next 6 fiscal years.

The trustees issued a Medicare funding warning in April 2007. Under the statute, the President is required to submit a legislative proposal to Congress that will lower the ratio to the 45 percent level. The statute further requires the Majority and Minority Leader or their designees to introduce the legislation submitted by the President. Thus today, I am fulfilling my statutory obligation by introducing this legislation.

Let me stress that introducing a bill ``by request'' should not be interpreted to imply endorsement of the legislation as submitted. As I mentioned, this introduction by me is required, it is not discretionary. Furthermore, let me be clear: While some of the items in the proposal deserve consideration, the proposal includes provisions that I oppose. For example, I have consistently voted against medical malpractice proposals similar to the proposal included in this package.

I have strong reservations about the basic approach of the trigger. The trigger establishes an arbitrary limit on general revenues that does not provide a meaningful measure of Medicare's fiscal health and would take some legitimate options for strengthening Medicare financing off the table. The focus on general revenue spending inherently favors some options over others.

Ironically, this process was included in the Medicare prescription drug legislation enacted by the then-Republican Majority and signed by President Bush--legislation that increased the liabilities of the Medicare program by $8.5 trillion. In fact, we would not have exceeded the 45 percent threshold but for the prescription drug benefit financed by general revenues.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic Majority in this House is committed to ensuring that the Medicare program continues to function effectively for beneficiaries, providers and taxpayers well into the future. Remember, the House enacted reforms to strengthen Medicare as part of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act of 2007. The CHAMP Act would have extended Medicare solvency by 2 years. The savings from reforming spending on Medicare Advantage plans in the CHAMP Act would have met the requirements of the trigger.

Let me say that it is imperative that we get serious about our long- term fiscal challenges. Analysts of diverse ideological perspectives and nonpartisan officials at the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have all warned that current fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long term even under the most optimistic projections. Medicare and Medicaid will grow by nearly five times as a share of the economy by 2050 under current projections if the growth of health care costs does not slow. And these programs will absorb as much of our Nation's economy by the late 2040s as the entire Federal budget does today.

Turning a blind eye to our long-term challenges would not only be irresponsible, it would be dangerous to our Nation's continued success. Those of us who believe that the American people want their government to invest in national security, health care, education, infrastructure, scientific research and other priorities have a critical stake in addressing the budgetary pressures that will be created by the growth of entitlement spending.

Finding a politically viable, equitable and financially sound solution to our fiscal challenges and meeting our responsibility to future generations will require bipartisan discussions in which all options must be on the table. Unfortunately, the Medicare trigger is ill-suited to such a process. Further, I am very skeptical that we can deal with the issue of entitlements in a bipartisan manner in the current environment, especially since the current administration has made it clear that it is not willing to discuss all options.

I believe it is critical that we begin to lay the foundation for bipartisan action on this issue in the next Congress. I am encouraged that efforts to establish a bipartisan task force with a broad mandate to address our fiscal challenges have been initiated. I believe this issue will be one of the most important that the next Congress and the administration must address.

We must have an open, honest debate about the best way to strengthen our entitlement programs that millions of Americans count upon.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 293, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 25 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until Tuesday, February 19, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Thursday, February 21, pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Monday, February 25.

Would the gentleman yield under his reservation?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In fact, I am from this very Chamber about 25 feet from here going to have a meeting with Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Conyers on proceeding to accomplish the objective the gentleman wants to seek and we want to seek.

As you also know, 2 days ago, we had a vote on ensuring the extension of the existing statute, not because we believed that was necessary but for an abundance of caution, and as the gentleman knows, every one of your Members voted against that extension on the demand that we do what you wanted us to do now. But in the protection that was available to you to extend for 21 days the protections you say are now going to be absent, every one of you voted ``no.'' I'm sorry that that happened.

Would the gentleman yield so I might respond to the gentleman from California's response?

I disagree with Mr. McConnell, Admiral McConnell, whose op-ed I read this morning. And as the gentleman knows, I would reiterate, had we extended by 21 days the Protect America Act, which all of your Members voted against, had we done that, the immunity which was provided in that would have continued. As the gentleman also knows, that the only issue here is whether or not the administration has to go to the trouble to go to the FISA Court, which it has done so over 16,000 times, not this administration but the previous administration, and only had its request rejected five times; 99.9 percent of the time the FISA Court has approved. And once it approves, the telecoms, the telecommunication companies, acting in response to that court order are not liable for their actions. Therefore, we regret that we have not extended that, but, as I said, I am meeting today, we will be meeting through the next days, to try to come to an agreement.

Because the Senate delayed its action for 3 months after we passed our bill, it presented us with a bill that you wanted us to take as a fait accompli, without going to conference, without having the opportunity to discuss it. We think that was unreasonable and we didn't agree. So we're going to pursue this process and we are all in agreement that we ought to get this done.

Will the gentleman yield?

Ninety percent of our party voted for that. All we needed was just a few from your side, and you all, each and every one without exception, voted against extending the present law which you now say if it lapses will put the country at risk. We do not agree with that, but that is your contention, not our contention. And it is somewhat, I think, contradictory for you on the one hand to say we're putting our country at risk and on the other hand voting to a person to not extend the law which you say protects our country.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an important issue which is therefore why I think it's worthy of making sure that everybody understands. The gentleman from California makes the point that he believes that we are at risk. I again reiterate, all of your Members voted against the extension. The gentleman from Georgia says we had a lot of time. Very frankly Senator Reid has given the opinion, it is

my opinion, respected as a parliamentarian apparently or knowledge of parliamentary procedure, that the reason it was delayed in coming to this body was because, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, you made the comment, which I think is absolutely accurate, all of you on your side of the aisle thought that we would take whatever the Senate gave us because we would be fearful; we would be fearful of not pursuing substantive legislative process to discuss this very important issue. I agree with you. Every one of your Members thought, in your words, we would blink. The question is not blinking. The question is substantively getting to a result that furthers the protection of our country and the protection of our Constitution. That is our perception. That is our belief. And I will tell my friend from California that it's not my opinion alone but it's the opinion of a number of people, including the former adviser to this administration on terrorism as well as the previous administration on terrorism, Richard Clarke, that the opinion I have expressed is an accurate opinion.

The gentleman also knows in terms, and I want to say, also, I don't think it's the appropriate place nor do I intend to get into my perception of Admiral McConnell's position. That's not the purpose of this debate. I have some views, but I'm not going to get into those. What I am going to get into and simply respond to these observations is that we believe the country is protected. We believe that in terms of all of those al Qaeda objects that you make reference to, I hope and presume, I do not know, I have no secret information that I'm disclosing, but I would be shocked and dismayed and deeply disappointed if at this point in time the administration did not have in place orders that covered at least from now until August of this year, which is when we last authorized this bill, the Protect America Act, and under which the administration could have gotten authority which would have lasted for a full year. So those orders are still in place, they will not lapse, and it will be no impediment to further interception of those communications.

If the gentleman will yield, a lot of them didn't believe that the act ought to be in place, you understand, at all.

Mr. PRICE or Georgia. I appreciate that, because I was about to make that point. The objection to the extension comes from both the left and the right. It's not that we thought you would blink. We could not believe that the majority would not live up to its primary responsibility, which we perceive as making certain that this Nation is protected. That's what we believed.

This House, Mr. Speaker, has adopted billions and trillions of dollars worth of spending in less time than it would have taken this week to come to conference and reach an agreement. We're here on Friday. We're ready to go. We are ready to go, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the gentleman is speaking about when you were in charge, passing those trillions of dollars in very short periods of time. We took a longer time, as you may recall. I think you were responsible, as a matter of fact, for some of that time that we spent.

Right.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H. Con. Res. 289, the resolution introduced by Congressman Al Green to commend the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, on their 99th anniversary.

Few organizations have had such a wide-ranging and long-lasting impact on the United States as the NAACP. Since their founding on February 12, 1909, the NAACP has been a strong, consistent voice for minority Americans. In the face of hatred and opposition, the members of the NAACP have consistently stuck to their guiding principle of nonviolence, and worked instead through elections, the

press, and the legal system. As a result of their leadership and tireless efforts, we are significantly closer to achieving political, educational, social, and economic equality for all.

As the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States, I congratulate the NAACP on their 99th anniversary. Their work over the past 99 years has made us a better and more tolerant Nation. I wish them the best as they continue their efforts to eliminate discrimination from all corners of our society.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

We are dealing, in these days, with serious issues. And serious people have been considering these issues in committee, and we will now consider them on the floor. This matter has been pending now for over half a year.

Madam Speaker, in 1885, a young scholar wrote an influential book about the United States Congress entitled ``Congressional Government.'' And in that book he offered the following observations about legislative branch oversight, and he said this, ``Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of the administration. Not any particular administration, but of the other coequal branch of government.''

He continued, ``It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. The informing function of Congress, not just informing ourselves, but informing the American public as well, the informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.'' An interesting observation. Many years later, in 1913, that young scholar, Woodrow Wilson, became President of the United States.

Congressional oversight of any administration is absolutely imperative to the proper functioning of our government, to our system of checks and balances, and to the fulfillment of our constitutional duty. A President who is forced to answer for his administration's actions, decisions, and conduct is a President who is less likely to amass power beyond that which the Constitution proscribes for his office or to imperil the welfare of our republic form of government. And that is the constitutional interest that today's resolution addresses.

I support the rule before us because I believe in a system of checks and balances in which no branch holds itself above the constitutional objectives of the sharing of authority, which the Founders wisely believed was essential to protect against the abuse of that authority by any one of those branches.

The issue before this body is not fundamentally whether the current administration acted properly and within the law when it dismissed seven U.S. attorneys in 2006, that may be the issue at some point in time, but unless we have the information to get to that point, such a question will be moot. Nor is this a partisan clash between a Democratic House and a Republican President. Rather, the basic issue before this House is this: whether this body and the committee system, which is central to our duties to perform meaningful and vigorous oversight, can simply be ignored by the executive branch when this body seeks testimony and documents relevant to an important public policy controversy.

As the New York Times noted this morning, ``If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding subpoena power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial President, above the law, and beyond the reach of checks and balances.''

What profit it a Nation if we include checks and balances within our constitutional framework to protect our country's freedom, and more importantly, our people's freedom, if, in fact, we honor it only in the breach? And as Bruce Fein, the constitutional scholar and former Department of Justice official during the Reagan administration, has stated, ``If Congress shies from voting for contempt in this case, secret government will become the rule.'' This is perhaps the most secretive administration in our history. This is a danger to our democracy.

He went on to say ``that Congress would be reduced to an ink blot on the constitutional map.'' That is why every one of us, every one of the 435 of us who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and uphold its laws, ought to vote for this resolution, because it does not matter whether there is a Republican President or a Democratic President, for them to refuse to respond to a subpoena of the Congress of the United States, and to even come here and claim a privilege, which they have not, our democracy will be lessened.

I urge my colleagues to carry out the intent and the vision of the Founders and the writers of our Constitution. Support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

The debates we have been having over the past few days are consequential and about the most important thing that this body does, and that is uphold the law. Not just pass the law, uphold the law.

As I said a little earlier in this debate, part of that was overseeing the executive branch to ensure that they execute our laws appropriately and legally. And the Congress has been given under the Constitution the authority to seek information. The Judiciary Committee has sought information and that information has not been forthcoming. The Congress, as Mr. Boehner said, cannot do its job if the Congress simply fails to assert its constitutional role.

Now there is a situation that we confront that a large number say they want to adjourn. They have been making motion after motion after motion to adjourn and they haven't been voting for it, but they have been making it.

And now they walk off the floor on the assertion that we are not working. They assert that we are not passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They assert that, but they all voted to a person not to give us the time to perform our extraordinarily important duties in resolving the differences between the Senate and the House in a conference committee.

Now, I will tell my friends on the Republican side of the House, they know as well as I do that the reason the Senate did not pass us a bill 3 months after we passed our bill to them was because of Republican delay in the United States Senate. That's the reason this bill is so late getting to us. That is the reason we don't have the time to work it out. That is the reason we are not passing legislation.

Now, the President asserts that the expiration of the Protect America Act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security Council Adviser on Terrorism says that is not true. Former Assistant Attorney General Wainstein says that is not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, have asserted that is not true. Why is it not true? Because FISA will remain in effect.

The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, a FISA

Court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act.

So I tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear, unfounded fear; 435 Members of this House, and every one of us, every one of us, wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us wants to subject America or Americans to danger.

The President's assertion is wrong. I say it categorically: the President's assertion is wrong. Now the President says he will delay his trip to stay here and work with us. I know Mr. Reyes and Mr. Conyers will be contacting Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Leahy to discuss with them how we might move forward. They in turn will talk with their Republican counterparts, as well, to see how we can move forward.

But the time that we asked for, less than 24 hours after the Senate passed us a bill, the time we asked for to elect this process, which is the normal legislative process to bring the Senate and the House together to fashion a bill that both Houses feel comfortable with, feel is good for America, was denied to us yesterday by unanimous vote by the minority party and gave us no time to accomplish that objective.

The President said he was going to veto it, which is why I presume all of you voted against it, because, of course, in the first 6 years, we never passed anything to the President that he wasn't supportive of. We were a very cooperative Congress with this President. This President is not used to the Congress saying, We may have a different view, Mr. President. We, too, have a responsibility and we may see it slightly differently than you.

But, yes, as the leader on the other side said, we have come together. We worked together. We passed a stimulus package together. We can do that on this bill. But we can't do it overnight. This matter is much too serious to do it overnight.

My friend from the Rules Committee indicates that this does not give us full time for debate on this rule. He opposes this rule. The interesting thing is he says contrary, we ought to be considering something overnight, overnight, without any time to consider it in conference.

The minority has now effected a strategy that they tried to use on the agriculture bill: let's work, but by the way, we are leaving. And why are we leaving? We are leaving so we can preclude a majority responding to a quorum call and if a majority does not respond, we will have to go out of session. So it is somewhat ironic that on the one hand they say we ought to be doing something, and on the other hand they walk out to preclude us from doing our business.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. There is no urgency. That claim is a claim made to stampede this House and the American people, I tell my friend from California. And the reason that there is no urgency is because in 1978 this Congress passed legislation to ensure the fact that we could intercept communications while at the same time protecting our Constitution. That is why there is no urgency.

Is there an important reason to act? There is. Do we have every intention of acting? We do. But we will not be presented with a bill on Tuesday night and be asked to pass it on Wednesday afternoon without full and fair consideration. That is our duty, that is our responsibility, and that is what we will do.