Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I rise, as I have a couple of times in the past, to simply say that I think on our side, obviously, we believed that we needed to move forward on the work. All of us, however, share what has been said about Tom Lantos, for whom we had the greatest respect, and we all share a sadness at his loss.

I regret that the actions that precipitated this hour that you are taking have occurred. They have occurred. We can't change them. Having said that, I want to say that I understand the point the gentleman is making, and I understand the point my friend Mr. Blunt has made. I think it will suffice to say that. But I can appreciate the position the gentleman found himself in and that Mr. Blunt and his leadership found themselves in.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time. I thank him as well for his leadership. I thank Mr. Reyes for his leadership. And, yes, I thank Mr. Hoekstra for his leadership as well, as well as Mr. Smith.

This is a very serious issue we confront today. This bill passed the Senate less than 24 hours ago; yet this coequal branch of the government of the United States is asked to do what the minority when it was in the majority would never have done, to take exactly what the Senate tells us to take, or, frankly, what the President tells us to take.

Now, let me say that we passed a bill November 15, 3 months ago, which gave the FISA Court and which gave the intelligence community everything they needed, given the technological changes and given the demands of keeping America safe. Everything. The Senate passed a bill out of their committee at about the same time.

But I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the Senate you have been slow-walking this bill. You have been slow-walking this bill to put us in the position we find ourselves in today. And you did it because the issue here is not the intelligence community, as Mr. Hoekstra talked about. It is the telecommunications companies. That is what the issue is here. Because title I would have been conferenced months ago. But, no, we do not want to apparently look very closely at what happened between the administration and the telecommunications companies.

Now, we passed a statute which said to the telecommunications companies, look, when we make phone calls, they need to be private and you can't disclose those to people, including the government, without a court order. We passed the FISA Court bill specifically to provide for the ability of our intelligence community to intercept communications, but to do so under the aegis of a court. That is what we do in America. It makes us a little different. Some governments, of course, do willy- nilly whatever they want to do.

This is not just about FISA. We incarcerate people without hearings, without lawyers. We torture people, contrary to the edicts of the international law, rationalized by an Attorney General of the United States in a memo to the President of the United States.

But I tell my friends that nobody in this institution ought to have any self-respect if what you are saying is we ought not to go to conference on this important issue, which is what you say by voting against this extension. This extension is caused almost solely by the members of the President's party in the United States Senate who would not allow this legislation to move more quickly in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I believe our friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of the United States are taking an untenable position. And what is that position? On the one hand, if the Protect America Act expires, America will be at risk. On the other hand, if we extend and keep in force the Protect America Act, the President says he will veto it. Now, I don't know what kind of Lewis Carroll logic that is, but it certainly escapes me. If in fact, and I don't agree with the President, but if in fact it is important to keep the Protect America Act in place, then passing this extension is the best way to do so.

Now, I think there are some things that we can discuss in conference. I, frankly, have told the White House as late as just a few hours ago that I think we can discuss possible ways to move forward on this, because there is not a person on this floor that doesn't want to protect America, that doesn't want to facilitate the interception of communications valuable to that objective of protecting America and Americans.

I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this extension, just as we did by unanimous consent essentially without a vote just a few weeks ago. The contemplation then was that the Senate would act. But the Senate did not act. It did not act until less than 24 hours ago, last night, late afternoon, and now we are confronted with take it or leave it.

Do we have no self-respect in this institution? Do we have no sense of responsibility to oversee that which has been passed, to go to conference and discuss our differences? There are differences, as you know. I would hope that every Member would say to themselves, yes, we have that kind of self-respect, and we understand our responsibility as an independent House of the Congress of the United States.

The logic of the opponents of this legislation, as I said, escapes me. The Protect America Act is imperative, they say, but they oppose its extension, as I said.

Madam Speaker, I support this 21-day extension. I want everybody on this House floor to understand that if we have a 21-day extension, I am hopeful that we will go to conference, I am hopeful the Senate will agree to a conference, and I am hopeful that we can engage Republicans and Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, on the Judiciary Committee, in an honest conference trying to resolve our differences and pass legislation that helps protect America. I want to remind my colleagues that this body has already passed reauthorization, so there is no need to do that. We are ready for conference right now.

So, Madam Speaker, in closing, let me urge every Member of this House, whether you are for or against the Protect America Act, whether you are for or against immunity, whether you are for or against title I of this bill, vote for this extension, just as you would vote for a CR and not shut down the government in order to give us time to pass appropriation bills fully. That is what this is, simply to give us 3 weeks, 10 days of which we won't be here, to address this very thorny issue on which there are legitimate differences of opinion.

The only other thing one could conclude is simply we are taking the position of ``Take it or leave it, House. Don't exercise your judgment, House. Don't meet your responsibilities to the American people, House.''

That is not what our constituents expect us to do. Vote for this extension.

Madam Speaker, I believe our friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of the United States are taking an untenable position on this legislation to provide a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act. On one hand, they argue that the extension of the PAA is vital to our national security. Yet, on the other hand, they come to this floor and oppose--and the President is threatening to veto--the 21-day extension of the PAA.

The logic of the opponents of this legislation escapes me. The PAA is imperative, they say. But they oppose its extension?

Madam Speaker, I support this 21-day extension. Here's why: it represents progress toward a final measure to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I want to remind my colleagues that this body has already passed legislation to reauthorize FISA. On November 15--3 months ago this Friday--the House passed the Restore Act, a bill that modernizes the technologically outdated FISA statute, gives the intelligence community the authority to intercept critical foreign communications, and honors our constitutional principles.

As we all know, this is a complicated issue. That is precisely why we're doing this extension today. With this vote, we are declaring that we will not just take whatever legislation the Senate sends us and rubber-stamp it. We are declaring that this body has a prerogative and a role in making law.

The bottom line is: responsible people in both Chambers want an opportunity to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills.

Let me close by saying, I do not agree with those who contend that the expiration of the PAA will jeopardize our national security. And, I am not alone in this view.

For example, Richard Clarke, the former chief National Security Council counterterrorism advisor to Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, has stated (and I quote):

Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would

not cease should the Protect

America Act expire. If this were true, the President would

not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his

veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue

even after legislative provisions lapsed because

authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a

full year.

And, Kenneth Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, recently said in an interview--according to the New York Times--that if the PAA expires, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law.

We must not fall prey to fearmongers who claim that our intelligence community could ``go dark.'' That is simply not true.

I urge my colleagues: pass this 21-day extension of the PAA so that we may try to work out our differences with the Senate-passed legislation, and enact legislation that protects our national security and the constitutional rights of the American people.

Madam Speaker, over the years, we have been greatly advantaged by some extraordinary people who work with us and for us. I have been particularly advantaged as the minority whip with an extraordinary man who has worked for me now for 5 years. Prior to that, he worked for Dick Gephardt for many years and has been on this floor working on behalf of not only the majority side or the minority side, depending on what the Democrats were, but also in trying to make sure that this institution talked to one another and worked together as well as it possibly could.

He is going to be retiring now after 25 years of service to this institution. He's been a congressional staffer since 1983. He has served as floor director for the majority leader since January of 2007, myself. In that capacity, he has been responsible for scheduling bills and managing the daily legislative program. He's provided tremendous legislative advice to so many of you on the floor who have gone to him and asked him for his counsel. He's provided policy advice to our side of the aisle and policy discussion with your side of the aisle, and he has also been a communications counsel.

There is nobody who knows this young man who does not like him. He is a decent, good, very smart, wonderful human being.

He served as floor director in my office, as I said, for 4 years. Prior to that, Rob was the chief appropriations staffer for former Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, and he also worked for Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Peter Visclosky. In those positions, his primary areas of focus included appropriations, global health, and foreign assistance.

During his career, Rob also worked for former Senator Brock Adams and former Representatives Jimmy Hayes, Cathy Long, and Gillis Long.

Rob is a graduate of the University of California Berkeley with a bachelor's degree in physiology and earned a master's in public policy at the University of Washington, and before that, was floor director for the Democratic whip's office.

All of us have deep affection for those people who spend extraordinary amounts of time at pay, which is not comparable to what they would be earning in the private sector. And I want to say, Rob Cogorno, to you, how very much I appreciate all that you have done for this institution, all that you have done for me as an individual, and I know I speak for all of the Members that we will greatly miss your advice and your counsel, your good humor and your good judgment. And we say to you, we wish you the very best of luck in everything you do.

I might also say that the young man who just gave me another piece of paper with some business is Rob's successor, and I urge Members of both sides of the aisle when he can be helpful to you, give you advice in terms of scheduling or the calendar in terms of when we are doing business, Alejandro Perez, my new floor director.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 293) and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank my friend for yielding. This is a sad day not only for this institution, for those of us who were Tom's friends, clearly for his family, but it is a sad day for our country. Tom Lantos had a backbone of steel and a heart of commitment, compassion, and courage.

David Dreier just mentioned my service on the Helsinki Commission. As chairman of that body for the House, with my friend Chris Smith, we shared responsibility for focusing on the human rights of people, particularly within the European theater and particularly in the Soviet Union, and we worked very hard at that. But no Member of this body has been a stronger voice, a more compelling voice for the rights of individuals, whatever their background, wherever they lived, and whatever the excuse was for acting against them or undermining their rights. When Tom spoke, especially on matters dealing with human rights, America's role in the world, the importance of confronting and defeating dictatorial regimes, both the left and right, his words contained a moral clarity and intellectual gravity that was seldom matched.

Those of us who had an opportunity to be with Tom when we met with people from around the world knew that Tom Lantos would be candid, diplomatic, but certain in his message. Tom, quite simply, was a man of great substance, an immigrant to America, like so many immigrants before him and after, but few matching his contribution to our great country.

Speaker Pelosi indicated that Tom referred to himself as an American by choice. He was a great humanitarian. His remarkable life serves as an inspiration to all of us, to his family, and to his country. He was an indomitable spirit. His life story of course is well known, and I will not repeat it here. Others will talk more specifically.

Last month, Tom was unable to attend the United Nations Annual Commemoration of the Holocaust. However, his daughter Katrina, married to one of our colleagues, Dick Swett, delivered his remarks, which called on the international community to, and I quote, ``dedicate ourselves to stopping current tragedies such as the genocide in Darfur, and to preventing such inhuman cruelty in the future.''

Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions around this globe have lost an extraordinary voice for them, individually and collectively.

Tom went on to note that the ``veneer of civilization is paper thin.'' That is a lesson for all of us. We know that the mob can be uncaring of human rights, of individuals. Tom Lantos focused on that issue when he said that that veneer is very thin. John Lewis, another great humanitarian and champion of individual rights and civil liberties. He went on to say, ``We are its guardians, and we can never rest.'' Not only did he say that, but he lived his life without rest for those he saw beleaguered.

Until his last day on this Earth, Tom Lantos never rested because of what he had seen and experienced. He was an indefatigable advocate for human

rights and human decency. And now with his passing it falls to us to honor his enduring legacy, not just by speaking on this floor of what he did, but committing ourselves to continue his advocacy for liberty and human rights.

There is no more fitting tribute to this wonderful man who lived a wonderful life marked by hardship, tragedy, and also triumph, and who now is at rest in God's hands.

Madam Speaker, I especially want to speak of Annette. You cannot speak of Tom Lantos without speaking of Annette. I don't know of any couple that I have ever met that was in fact, as well as in marriage- ceremony verbiage, two people who became one, kindred spirits born of equal experience, equally committed with a passion and a courage and an untiring commitment on behalf of those who needed a voice. Annette is with us still and, therefore, Tom is with us still. May we honor him, remember him, and hold high the torch that he held so high, so successfully for so long.

God bless you, Tom Lantos.

Mr. Chairman, today--in a bipartisan vote--this House will pass critical legislation designed to expand college access and to make higher education more affordable for millions of American students.

This legislation, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, builds on the College Cost Reduction Act--legislation enacted last year that, among other things, increased the maximum Pell Grant to $5,400 over five years and cut interest rates in half on subsidized student loans, saving the average student $4,400 over the life of the loan.

There is a direct connection between our Nation's future prosperity and our ability to compete and succeed in a global marketplace that now relies more on brains than brawn. An educated workforce is absolutely indispensable in this information age--and this legislation represents an important step in expanding college access to more Americans.

In particular, I want to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and the members of the Education and Labor Committee for their hard work on this bill, which was reported out of committee on a 45 to 0 vote.

This legislation reauthorizes the Higher Education Act through fiscal year 2012, and, among other things, it will encourage colleges to rein in price increases, providing incentives--such as additional need-based aid--to colleges to hold down price increases. It also will require the Department of Education to create ``higher education price increase watch lists'' that report the full price of tuition and fees, as well as the cost of room and board for students living on campus. And, it seeks to restore integrity and accountability to the student loan program, requiring institutions and lenders to adopt strict codes of conduct, and providing students with full and fair information about their borrowing options.

Furthermore, this bill will make textbook costs more manageable by providing students with advance information on textbook pricing so that they can plan for expenses and by ensuring that colleges and faculty have full textbook pricing information when making purchasing decisions.

Just today, the Washington Post noded in an editorial: ``Textbook prices have been rising rapidly in recent decades, increasing at more than 2\1/2\ times the rate of inflation from 1986 to 2004, according to a Government Accountability Office report.'' The Post continued: ``At the University of Maryland at College Park, the average student spends more than $1,000 a year on textbooks--equal to 20 percent of tuition.''

Mr. Chairman, it not only is imperative to expand college access, but also to do what we can to ensure that our students do not graduate with crushing debt that haunts them for decades.

In addition, this important bill will make college more affordable for low-income and non-traditional students by allowing students to receive Pell Grant scholarship aid for the entire year. The bill also creates a new scholarship program for active duty military personnel and family members, including children and spouses of active duty military service members and veterans.

Finally, let me say that I am pleased that this legislation includes provisions that Congressman Berman and I worked on that require institutions to disclose to students and employees their policies related to copyright infringement and a description of actions that institutions take to prevent and detect illegal file sharing.

Mr. Chairman, this a good, thoughtful piece of legislation. And, I urge members on both sides on the aisle to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I know Members have probably gotten it on their BlackBerries, but I wanted to confirm that the stimulus package is going to be passed in the Senate and will be coming back to us. Mr. Boehner and I and the whip and the leadership have agreed that we will take up the stimulus tonight. We will take it up by unanimous consent. There will be 20 minutes of debate on each side.

We will conclude the stimulus package, send it to the President, and we will not be meeting tomorrow.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Ferguson

I thank the Republican whip.

On Monday, the House will not be in session. 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, Thursday, and Friday the House will meet at 10 a.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by close of business this week.

We will consider H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. In addition, we will consider legislation regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as we expect the Senate to act on the bill the House sent, hopefully, early next week.

I appreciate the gentleman's confidence that the Senate is going to send us a bill, short-term, medium-term or long-term duration. We have been waiting for that for some time, obviously.

It is my understanding the Senate is going to address this bill on Tuesday. Now, if they send it to us on Tuesday, we will see what they have in the bill. There obviously will be little, if any,

time for a conference. My expectation is there will be a difference between the House bill which passed here 2\1/2\ months ago and the Senate bill.

As I said on the floor, when we passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill on November 15 or 16, I said at that time I was hopeful that we would pass it, that the Senate would pass it, and that we could have a conference in which the very important specifics of the bill might be discussed and differences ironed out. That has not yet occurred, unfortunately.

In addition, as I told my friend last week, we had still not gotten access to the documents that we had asked to see to indicate what, in fact, immunity was being asked for. Those documents, my friend and I had an opportunity to discuss that, I don't know whether he had any role in that, but they will now be made available as of today. As a matter of fact, I intend to take the opportunity tomorrow, much of the morning, perhaps even into the afternoon, to review those documents. Some few Members have had that opportunity already, but very few. So we have been very late and compressed in the schedule of dealing fully with what is the thorniest issue on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill, and that is the granting of immunity.

I will tell my friend that, as I said, when we extended it for 15 days, when we had an agreement to do that, to give the Senate time to act, I was hopeful they could act within that time. The problem we now find ourselves in, if they act on Tuesday, and they send the bill to us on Wednesday or late Tuesday night, I don't know how long their consideration is going to take.

As you know, there is substantial controversy, as is evident by the difficulty they have had in passing it, so I don't know exactly how quickly they will be able to pass that bill. But as I have said on numerous occasions, we believe, I believe, there are serious issues on which there are obviously honest differences of opinion.

I agree with my friend, we would like to resolve this. We would like to have it resolved so that we don't visit it monthly or every 3 months or every 6 months. We believe, as I said before, that the current bill, the current FISA law, if it is reverted to, will provide for all of the intelligence surveillance that is needed by the administration.

It would require, of course, getting FISA approval, the court's approval, which was, of course, contemplated in 1978 when it was adopted so that with or without an extension or new legislation, we believe the administration can pursue, as all of us want to, there is nobody on this floor who doesn't want to make sure that we facilitate the protection of the American public and America through the interception of communications which may be by terrorists planning to attack us.

But having said that, I am sure my friend appreciates, as I have said all along, this is a serious issue, a difficult issue for many. I think we are all agreeing on the enforcement and interception part. It is the immunity issue that gives many concerns, and they want to look at that carefully, and I think that's fair to do. Whether or not we will be able to do that next week, frankly, I tell my friend, I am not sure.

I agree with my friend, and that is correct, and I think that is why all of us want to facilitate and ensure that the work of the NSA and others can go forward. I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to either see or hear this; but I just wanted to bring to your attention, because we do share that concern, that in testimony this morning before the Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, whom we work with, said that all current surveillance activity under the Protect America Act would continue even after the law expires.

He went on to say, after being asked about the backlog of surveillance, because, as you recall when we were back in August or July of last year, there was a concern about the backlog and therefore it couldn't get approval as quickly as might be needed. Director McConnell informed the House Intelligence Committee that the backlog that existed has been eliminated, saying we are caught up on everything at this point in time.

I think we can have a confidence level. I agree with you, we want to get this done as quickly as possible. Because I am concerned that we not have a gap, we are trying to assure ourselves, and believe we are assured that there will not be a down time for our intelligence service should we not be able to reach agreement either with the Senate or with ourselves in the time frame of next Friday.

I am hopeful that we can do that, and we will work toward that end.

I appreciate your bringing to my attention, and we discussed the second sentence, which you just read regarding the more restrictive. When he refers to the more restrictive, he simply refers to the fact that they would have to go to the FISA Court for approval of such intercept as they want, and that would be within the, of course, authority within 72 hours to act and then get approval after the fact, which is why I indicated that Admiral McConnell had said that the backlog had been eliminated.

You recall previous testimony, or comments, that one of the officials who dealt with these in the administration indicated that, and the court could, frankly, within minutes, give approval

in many situations, and now that the backlog has been eliminated, it is correct, it would be more restrictive, it would have to go to the court, but that, of course, is what was contemplated in 1978. We do not believe that that would in any substantial way slow down the process and, therefore, not in any way put us at risk.

Having said all of that, we still agree with you that if we can get this done in a timely fashion that would be good.

I want to tell my friend, though, very candidly, I think there is some sentiment that if we don't get it done that that is going to put this side of the aisle that wants to look at this bill, after the Senate passes it back to us, with whatever provisions they include in it, carefully, we understand that we are going to be portrayed as somehow undermining the security of America. We think that argument is bogus, but we do think it may well be made.

I do want to make the point that I don't think we have much difference on that issue because we agree that technology has changed. As we all know, there is a switch here in the United States now that the 1978 law did not anticipate. Frankly, I don't think there is a great deal of contention. I think in a bipartisan fashion we believe that needs to be addressed. We addressed it in our bill and the Senate addressed it in their bill. Frankly, I don't think that is one of the items in contention.

In fact, I would suggest to my friend we could deal with the immunity issue, which looks back not at present capacity nor future capacity, and resolve that issue in a separate bill if that was the concern about going forward. I think that could be done relatively quickly.

My only point to the gentleman is I agree with you, technology has changed. I think there is bipartisan agreement we need to address that and facilitate the foreign-to-foreign intercept with a blanket approval simply related to process, and I think we could do that relatively easily because I don't think that is particularly contentious between us.

There is a possibility we will be considering an energy bill much like some of the provisions that were included in H.R. 6 in the 6 for '06 package that we passed in the first 100 hours, and other portions of which were included in the energy bill that did not make it through.

I don't have specifics on that at this point in time, but that is being discussed and that is a possibility and he is correct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Obviously Friday is on the schedule. I expect we will be here on Friday. We have some other legislation on the suspension calendar. I don't know how extensive that will be.

Clearly we have been talking about FISA. FISA authorization ends on Friday. Again, we have a difference in perception of the consequences of that; but nevertheless, we have scheduled Friday so we are available depending on what the Senate does and depending on whether we can get to some agreement to ensure our presence to act on that, if possible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 12, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with my colleagues from the Maryland delegation, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life and legacy of a beloved figure from our State who passed into God's hands on January 12, State Senator Gwen Britt.

Gwen lived a full, wonderful life. She was a wife, a mother, a grandmother, legislator, a civil rights leader and a friend. But she also was an inspiration, a woman of deep faith and conviction, with an unshakable commitment to achieving justice, equality and fairness in our Nation.

The former Gwendolyn Greene grew up in northeast Washington at a time when our Nation was failing to live up to its promise of equal opportunity. She knew the racial divisions that existed in this segregated city, in our schools, in our stores, even in our parks.

And so in 1960, as an 18-year-old student activist of Howard University, Gwen and members of the District of Columbia's non-violent action group decided to take a stand. She walked into the Montgomery County park, then segregated, and tried to climb aboard a horse on a merry-go-round; something that all of us today would think is normal for any American, particularly any young American.

Yet as the Washington Post reported, the students' actions, as innocent and as unprovocative as they seem today, sparked 5 days of protests, and Gwen and other activists were arrested for trespassing, spat upon and harassed by counter-demonstrators.

This experience left Gwen undeterred. In fact, it fortified her already strong character, as well as her determination to do what she knew in her mind and in her heart was right.

Gwen took to heart Dr. King's words, ``Make a career of humanity, and you will make a greater person of yourself, a greater Nation of your country and a finer world to live in.'' So said Martin Luther King, Jr.

Gwen Britt took that to heart. So she did make our Nation a finer place in which to live. That experience in Glen Echo Park was only the beginning of Gwen's civil rights work.

She left Howard University to join the Freedom Riders who challenged Jim Crow laws in the South and in our transportation system. And in 1961, she spent 40 days in a Mississippi jail for sitting in a whites- only train station.

John Lewis was one of Gwen Britt's friends. John Lewis, a hero, a Member of this body. More people know about John Lewis because of his extraordinary leadership, but Gwen Britt was there by his side on Freedom Rides.

It is a testament to Gwen Britt's humility and quiet confidence that she never advertised her proud and very important civil rights work.

As Maryland State Delegate Victor Ramirez of Prince George's County recently said, ``She talked about the civil rights movement if you brought it up, but she was one of those people who spoke softly but carried a big stick.''

Since her passing, words of tribute have poured forth. Governor Martin O'Malley noted, ``She was a leader long before her years in the Senate.'' How true that is. Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown called her a ``principled, active and fair-minded voice for equality.''

And Prince George's County executive Jack Johnson said she was ``one of the most honest people you ever met.'' And on The Washington Post's Web site, people who knew Gwen posted words of sympathy and tribute.

For example, Katey Boerner, the executive director of the Glen Echo Park Partnership for Arts and Culture, has said some, almost 50 years after the demonstration that occurred to open up Glen Echo's amusements to people of all colors, ``We plan to include her story of bravery and shepherding change in our upcoming civil rights exhibition here at the park. We can now treasure her memory for the amazing story that was her life and the impact that she had on so many through her leadership.''

Not surprisingly, Gwen Britt also made an important impact in the State Senate after she was elected in 2002. She rose to the position of deputy majority leader in 2007 and became an unwavering voice for those who have felt the cold chill of exclusion.

Carl Snowden, the director of civil rights in the State Attorney General's Office in Maryland, said this, ``She saw other groups that have historically been locked out of the system: women, Latinos, gays. And she felt all of those left out had to have a place at the table.''

Gwen Britt was a woman of extraordinary character and courage, and all those she touched during her 66 years on this earth, her beloved family; her sons, who spoke so eloquently at her funeral; her husband, who himself was a Freedom Rider, who himself was a great warrior and advocate for justice in the civil rights movement.

The State of Maryland and our Nation have been enriched by her actions and her leadership, as a young person, as a State Senator, as a neighbor, as a friend.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to extend my condolences to Gwen's husband of 46 years, Travis; her two sons, Travis, Jr., and John; and all of her family and many friends.

We will miss her dearly, although we are comforted that her life and legacy will endure and that she now is at rest in God's hands.

Gwen will live as so many before, in the hearts and minds of those she impressed, of those she motivated, of those she enriched. We will miss Senator Gwen Britt, but our State, our community and our Nation have been made better by her life.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Before the gentleman who spoke before me leaves, I just wanted to make sure that we correct the record. He said we might go back to the deficits that we had prior to 9/11. I will remind the gentleman that this President inherited a surplus and we had three surplus years preceding the fiscal year 2001, and in fact the Clinton administration ended up with a net surplus, the only President in our lifetimes to have done so. I know he misspoke and I knew what he meant, and I share his view on the deficits.

However, I am very supportive of this package because uniquely deficits I think are justified in the time when you have a crisis economically confronting you and you want to stimulate

the economy. That is in fact I think classic economics in many ways, and it is what we hear almost every economist telling us, from conservative economists to liberal economists and in between.

Mr. Speaker, for several years the American people have been confronting an economy that most working people are not being advantaged by. We were told that if we adopted an economic policy in the early part of this administration that that would turn our economy around, grow jobs, stimulate growth. In point of fact, of course, less than one-third of the number of jobs that were created from 1993 to 2001 have been created from 2001 to today, less than a third in the private sector, 6 million versus 20 million under Bill Clinton.

This prediction of economic well-being was not in fact true, and it is now abundantly clear that millions of hardworking American families are struggling and that the American economy needs a strong shot in the arm.

I want to congratulate my friend Hank Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury. I want to congratulate the Joint Economic Committee that provided good statistics, our Budget Committee and Ways and Means Committee for the work they have done. I want to congratulate Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt for the leadership they have shown, and I certainly want to congratulate our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, all of whom worked together tirelessly to try to come to agreement. And I want to congratulate Mr. Rangel and Mr. McCrery, who in a bipartisan way worked together to try to get us to where we are today.

I think this is good news for the American public, because we are going to vote in an overwhelmingly and bipartisan fashion to reach out to try to get this economy moving and help a lot of Americans.

The number of Americans living in poverty and the number of uninsured is up by 5 million and 7 million respectively. Job growth has been unimpressive. Foreclosures have hit record levels, and Americans all across this country are struggling with exploding gasoline prices, higher grocery bills, and increasing college and health care costs.

Thus, I am very pleased that Members on both sides of the aisle and the White House have come together in the spirit of bipartisanship and good faith to produce the economic stimulus package that we will have the opportunity to vote on today.

In particular, the Speaker, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, as I said, and Treasury Secretary Paulson deserve great credit for their efforts. The Speaker clearly, as someone who has watched her work on this for the last 2 weeks, I can tell you, she was indefatigable and focused, as was Mr. Boehner.

In short, this stimulus will put money in the hands of hardworking Americans to give them the help they need and at the same time stimulate the economy. That is what economists tell us we ought to be doing.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers told the New York Times last Friday about this stimulus package: ``It is a much-needed and very constructive step. It will provide some confidence, but policy-making will need to be on standby, because more may be needed.'' That is obviously a fact. We hope this will do the job, but we will be on alert to make sure that we do not recede further.

I am pleased that this stimulus package adhered to the principles that Democrats have stressed for weeks, that an economic stimulus package be timely, targeted, and temporary. That is not just an alliterative phrase that rolls from your mouth relatively easily. It is a premise on which we have based this package so it would be stimulus, so it would be temporary and not exacerbate long-term deficits, and would be targeted to those people who need it and will help stimulate the economy.

Democrats are particularly pleased that under this package 35 million working families who would not otherwise have been helped will receive tax relief. My friend who spoke before me spoke about transfer of wealth from one to the other. We treat, unfortunately, 50 percent of America who pays more FICA taxes than they do income taxes, 50 percent of working Americans pay more FICA tax than they do income tax, we treat them as if somehow they are not paying taxes. They pay property taxes, franchise taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes. They pay a lot of taxes, and they are hurting. This is a tight economy for them, and this bill added 35 million additional Americans, middle-income and lower- income working Americans, with help. They will help stimulate the economy.

This economic package also will expand financing opportunities for Americans in danger of losing their homes. I congratulate Mr. Frank for the extraordinary leadership he has shown on this issue. The mortgage crisis obviously is squeezing many, many Americans and putting them in danger. Too many have already lost their homes, and many are in danger of losing their homes.

It also gives that business stimulus that is a concurrent partner of this stimulus package, not only giving people the opportunity to purchase but giving people the opportunity to expand jobs, expand their businesses, and grow our economy.

I commend it to both sides. I thank both sides for working on this. My friend Charlie Rangel said during the course of these negotiations, he said that not only will the stimulus package through its economic impact give confidence to our country, but the fact that we have in a bipartisan way come together and concluded that we can work together in time of challenge will also give our citizens confidence. I think they will be pleased with the work we do this day.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

I rise in support of this particular extension. I do not rise and did not rise in support of the underlying bill that we are extending. And I think the gentleman from Ohio raised some valid points, as the chairman thinks he raised valid points as well.

But the issue here is really one of allowing this body an opportunity to pass a bill that speaks to the constitutional issues that have been raised, as well as the substantive issues raised by Mr. Issa in what we all want to do: protect America and Americans.

Today the House is voting on a 15-day extension, nothing more, nothing less. Before we do that, I want to remind my colleagues that this body has already passed legislation to reauthorize FISA.

On November 15, 2\1/2\ months ago, this body passed the RESTORE Act, a bill that modernizes the technologically outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, gives the intelligence community the authority to intercept critical foreign communications, and

protects our fundamental constitutional rights.

The bill was skillfully assembled by two of our best chairmen, John Conyers and Silvestre Reyes. Those chairmen join me today in support of this short-term extension for several reasons. First, despite the body's efforts over 2\1/2\ months ago, the Senate has yet to complete its work on its own FISA legislation. This week they failed to get cloture on either alternative. We are going to await its bill and look forward to an undoubtedly challenging, but productive, conference. This will take some time.

Second, on the question of immunity, which the President has so highly touted, our committees have been asking for 8 months to see the legal documents pertaining to the President's terrorist surveillance program. And we have received 8 straight months of denials. The White House only offered this access last Friday. It is reasonable to conclude that for the committees to carry out its own responsibilities and constitutional duties, it needs some time to do that.

This afternoon, our Judiciary members will be read-in to the program, and only next week will they begin to digest the hefty stack of documents that, in turn, will help them make a judgment on what, if any, immunity is merited. My position has been that in order to give immunity, we need to know what we are giving immunity for and what the justification for the actions were. Again, we need time for this important review. This extension gives us that time.

Finally, let me say to my colleagues that even if we were unable to do this extension, and this is very important, even if we were unable to do this extension, February 1 were to come and go without any new legislation, no one should fall victim to those fear-mongers who suggest that our intelligence community could ``go dark.'' It would not. That is simply not the case.

The authorizations issued under the Protect America Act are in effect for up to one full year. So any requests that have been made and authorized up to this point in time from August on would be in effect at least through next July even if they had been authorized in August. The authorization issued under the Protect America Act will help protect us to that extent.

This means that all of the surveillance in effect today will remain in effect for least 6 more months. Even the administration's own Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Kenneth Wainstein, acknowledged this, saying that if the PAA were allowed to expire, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year.

In fact, out of an abundance of caution, last Thursday, when I announced the schedule for this week, I urged the administration, if it had any authorizations, it needed to proceed on that for fear that we might not extend this act. I think we'll do that today, so that fear will not be realized.

For those new threats that develop after February 1, let us not forget that the underlying statute still gives the administration 3 days' worth of emergency authority to immediately begin surveillance without going to the Court, no lesser court. The Court, by the way, now has no backlog.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is simply much like a CR, which is not a judgment on the merits of a particular appropriation bill one way or the other. It is simply a judgment that the congressional will ought to be done, that we ought to make our judgment based upon a conference report, with the Senate having passed a bill, which it has been unable yet to do.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, not because you support the underlying bill, but because you share with me and with Mr. Conyers and Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Issa and all the others who have dealt with this bill a concern about protecting our country and protecting our Constitution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The schedule for the week of February 4 is attenuated, to some degree obviously, by the 22 States that have a primary on February 5. Both Democrats and Republicans obviously will be involved in those to one degree or another. Monday and Tuesday the House is not, therefore, in session.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Thursday and Friday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business this week. In addition, we will consider H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act.

That is the schedule. Of course, I will tell my friend that we obviously have a couple of bills that we passed today

that we want to see move as quickly as possible, and if we could move those next week, we would certainly try to do so.

Thank you for yielding.

We only have, as you know, essentially 2 days and the evening of Wednesday, because we come in Wednesday at 6:30. So I am reluctant to give away Friday, given on this side we have worked so hard to get done in a relatively quick fashion, I think quick fashion, not relatively, on our stimulus package. So I do not want to speculate on giving that day away at this point in time, nor do I want to speculate that we will give the day away. If we do not have work to do, obviously we will not require Members to be here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

He and I share that concern, of course. As I indicated, and he well knows, we passed a bill on November 16 of last year, which means that was 2\1/2\ months ago that we passed a bill. We have been waiting for the Senate to pass a bill. They have two bills, as you know: one out of their Intelligence Committee, one out of the Judiciary Committee. They have been unable to reach compromise. Two days ago, they had votes on cloture and did not receive that, either for the extension or for essentially the Intelligence bill.

As a result, we are very frankly in, as you well know as well as anybody, we are waiting on the Senate to pass a bill so that either our bill, we can send that to the President; their bill, send it to conference, or whatever option. But we need them to take some action. We are hopeful they will take some action soon.

I met, along with other members of the leadership on our side of the aisle, just a short time ago, informed them that we had passed by vote an extension of 15 days, urged them to move as quickly as they could. The leader indicated to me that he was hopeful that they would be able to address that this week. I think he is going to be talking to the Republican leader to see what possibly could get 60 votes to move something to the floor and through consideration. But I am unable to tell you what we are going to do until such time as the Senate acts. As you and I have discussed, you have been there.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I do want to comment, because our perspectives are somewhat different on the risks that would be created by failure to act or not have an extension, so we would be operating, as you pointed out, under the old FISA statute.

Very frankly, the good news is that the backlog that confronted the court now no longer exists.

Secondly, as you know, under the old law, the 72-hour period in which the Government could take action and then get sanction of the court after the fact is in the law.

So I believe that second paragraph, while I don't disagree with his speculation, I disagree with his conclusion in the sense that I think that the Government, the NSA or another agency, could in fact act within that 72 hours and get approval from the FISA Court for its actions. And, as the gentleman knows, the FISA Court rarely, if ever, and I don't know of an incident off the top of my head where they have disapproved an action that was taken and stopped it at that point in time.

So, I think the risk is minimal, because I think the old law, while, yes, they have to go to the court, and very frankly, this is why it was created, to be a check and balance on what might be, and I don't allege that this is happening, but certainly it was a check on arbitrary and capricious action by those in the Government. I happen to think that check and balance is an appropriate one; although, under the statute we passed, we gave broader authority, blanket authority, as you know.

But we are hopeful, as you are, that the Senate will act, that we be able to go to conference. We need to deal with the immunity issue, which is the difference between the two Houses, although they haven't passed a bill, but the bill that passed out of the Intelligence Committee did give retroactive immunity. That is controversial.

And we have just got, as I told you, the documentation last Friday that we have been asking for an opportunity to review to determine, A, the justification for the action of the telecom companies and the actions for which immunity is being sought. We think that is appropriate for us to know before we act.

But in any event, I did inform, as I told you, the leader that we had acted, and indicated to him I hope that they would act as soon as possible so that we could resolve this in conference.

I would agree with that. I think we solved the technological problem in the bill we passed. Very frankly, the only problem that I think the administration would have with our bill which we passed through the House would be the immunity issue.

The technological issue I think is addressed by the blanket approval by the court. Although the court has to approve certain objects and processes, it does not, as you know, need to approve specific instances of intercepts or specific targets of intercept.

So, from that standpoint, I think our bill solved that problem. But our bill has not been enacted so the technological issue of where the communication now goes through a U.S. switch, that is the technological difference now, and then goes back out, that needs to be addressed. It was addressed in our legislation, but the legislation needs to pass.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding. I thank Mr. Dingell for his indefatigable advocacy on behalf of children and on behalf of the health of all Americans. I thank my Republican colleagues, as well, for a large number of them supported this legislation when it passed the House.

In fact, over 60 percent of this House voted for this legislation. Over 66 percent of the Senate voted for this legislation. We are just a percentage point short of overriding the President's veto. We are not going to override that veto today. That is unfortunate. It is not unfortunate for me. It is not unfortunate for the 434 of us who have a health insurance program, and we have the most accessible health care perhaps of any American. But it is very unfortunate for those parents who woke up this morning and prayed that their children didn't get sick and prayed

that they didn't get sick because they don't have health insurance, and they are not sure that without health insurance they will have access. They will have access perhaps if their child gets very sick, gets very badly injured, because then they will take them to the emergency room and the emergency room will see them.

There is not one of us, not a person in this Chamber, who would want their children, their grandchildren, or in my case, my great- granddaughter, in that predicament. Not one of us. The gentleman from Georgia who previously spoke talked about politics, and Mr. Barton I think has mentioned, I haven't heard all of the debate, but mentioned this was about politics. Well, I would agree; it is about politics. Everything we do on this floor is about politics, not necessarily partisan politics, but about public policy and the politics to achieve public policy and the philosophy underlying the achievement of that policy.

You've heard me quote it before. You are probably tired of hearing me quote it. But I am going to quote it again. The President of the United States was seeking reelection in 2004. In the summer, late summer of 2004, he stood on the floor of the Republican Convention and said to all America, ``If I am reelected in a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.''

He was reelected. And in 2005, there was no aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance. And the Republicans were in charge of this House and of this Senate. There was no aggressive effort here, either. And in 2006, when the same leadership maintained, there was no aggressive effort to add millions of children consistent with the President's promise of 2004.

But when we were elected and when we took over the leadership of this House and when Mr. Dingell took over leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rangel took over as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Mr. Stark took over the chairmanship of the Health Subcommittee, lo and behold, we pursued the President's objective. Now, that may be political. But it was certainly the politics promoted by the President. It was the objective that the President said was an important one. It was a promise he made to America's children and America's families. And so we passed a bill through this House with 45 Republicans, 43 on this particular bill, and in the Senate, two-thirds of the Senate, 18 Republican United States Senators, almost half of the Senate delegation on the Republican side of the aisle voted for this bill.

And indeed, two of the senior Members, including the former chairman, Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, now the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and Senator Hatch, one of the senior Members of the United States Senate, both conservative Republicans, urged this President to sign this bill. Why? Because the facts that you are hearing on this side of the aisle are wrong, Mr. President. That's what Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley said. Actually, they didn't say the facts on this side of the aisle that are being cited, but the facts that the President was saying was the reason for his veto, said they were wrong.

So, yes, we have another opportunity. And I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, as the majority leader who schedules business for this floor, this won't be your last opportunity this year to address this issue. Is that politics? Maybe. And if it is bad politics, the people will not support it. But you and I both know that nigh onto 70 percent of the American public believes this bill ought to be passed, notwithstanding the veto of the President of the United States. Why did they think that? Because they know that their neighbors, maybe themselves, are challenged by their children not being covered. They are working. They are trying to make it. But as the economy tanks, hopefully we can stem that fall. They're worried.

Yes, this is about politics with a small ``p,'' about making public policy that helps our Americans who are working hard to make America a great country and expect their government to hear their cries for help.

We spent some 24 meetings trying to address some of the questions that Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite raised. Mr. Barton was in a couple of those meetings. We didn't get there. We regret that we didn't get there. Frankly, I want to tell you that I have talked to some of the people in that room who wanted to get there and were disappointed that we didn't get there. You've talked to them, too, Mr. Barton, on your side of the aisle.

We have an opportunity to stand up for the 4 million additional children who will be helped by this legislation if we override the President's veto. Let's give those children the health care they need, they want, and a great Nation ought to ensure.