Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished Republican whip.

On Monday the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 5 p.m., and that evening we will receive the State of the Union address from the President.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 noon for legislative business. 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. 1528, a bill to designate the New England National Scenic Trail.

The House will not be in session for the balance of the week in order to accommodate the Democratic Caucus Issues Conference.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have not talked to Senator Reid nor the Speaker about any commitment about bringing that bill up on Thursday. First of all, of course, next Thursday we won't be here, if they bring it up Thursday.

Well, as you know, he may do that. As you know, Leader Reid asked for unanimous consent yesterday for a 30-day extension of the present act which expires on the 1st of the month. Mr. McConnell, the minority leader, objected to that extension.

Furthermore, obviously, the Senate has not completed its work so that we are unable to go to conference at this point in time on the bill that we passed now some months ago, or over a month ago.

When the present Protect America Act, which we passed in August, time frame comes to an end the 1st of the month, of course the intelligence community will not go dark. The authorizations issued under the Protect America Act are in effect for up to, as you well know, a full year, so that those matters that have been approved for interception will not terminate. Those authorizations do not terminate on the 1st of February; so that hopefully the administration has requested authorization for any and all targets that it believes are important for us to be intercepting at this point in time. And certainly, if they know of any, they ought to be requesting such authorization in contemplation of the possibility. If the Senate doesn't act, we won't have a bill to pass.

I want to tell my friend that, according to a New York Times story today, Kenneth Wainstein, who's the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, he said that if PAA, the Protect America Act, were allowed to expire, intelligence officials would still be able to continue intercepting, he said eavesdropping, on already approved targets for another 12 months. That is what I was asserting, and that's the basis on which I make that assertion.

The Protect America Act only requires that the AG adopt guidelines for surveillance, as you know, rather than the individualized warrants to get 1-year authorization. These authorizations do not require the NSA to specify the name, number or location of the people they want to listen to, so that the situation we will find ourselves in, should the Senate not act or be able to act on Thursday either passing legislation or sending it to us, would be simply that the NSA and the administration would be relying on the authorizations they already have.

I would hope that if the Senate cannot act and that we could not go to conference, that we could agree on this side to a 30-day extension and send that over to the Senate. They failed to do that on unanimous consent, so it would give us time to go to conference, because, as my friend knows, there is obviously substantial controversy in the other body with reference to how the immunity issue is addressed. There is substantial controversy in this House about how that question should be addressed. And very frankly, I was hopeful that the Senate would act long before this, I know you've been in a similar situation, and that we would be in conference and try to resolve those differences. We haven't been able to do that.

Under no circumstances do we think, however, that the fact that February 1 comes and goes without the passing of either an extension or new legislation will undermine the ability of the NSA and the administration to continue to eavesdrop on those targets that it believes are important to focus on for the protection of our people and our country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand his concern.

Obviously what concerns me is the proposition, as the gentleman puts forward, that we make sure we have the authorization to intercept those communications which may pose a danger to the United States and to our people.

I would hope and urge this administration if they know of any such targets, that they immediately request authorization under that, and they have another week essentially to do so. We believe those could be approved within, as some previous Justice Department official said, hours of application.

So in the first instance, I would hope that they would make efforts to preclude the possibility that we would have targets that aren't authorized.

Secondly, my concern is that the other body likes to put us in a position where it's take it or leave it; in other words, without discussion in terms of the very substantive important discussion on how we protect ourselves against terrorists and protect the Constitution. We think those are very important questions on both sides, not that they're either side, but we believe they can be consistent with one another, but we think we need the time to do so.

That is why I pressed so hard, as the gentleman knows, to pass a FISA bill through this House. We passed a FISA bill through this House over a month ago. It was in November, so with clearly enough time to give the other body which had also considered a bill. And when we passed our bill, we already had bills out of the Intelligence Committee; and the Judiciary Committee bill, I'm not sure whether it was out of committee or not, but it had been considered in committee.

So I think it's unfortunate that we've been put in this time frame, but I frankly, without deciding the question today on the floor, am very interested in pursuing this in the regular order to discuss between the two Houses whether or not we can reach a resolution on this immunity issue which I think is an important one, as well as reaching a resolution on what I think is a much improved process that the House passed and, very frankly, which I think the Senate bill also has made some improvements on in the Judiciary Committee.

There are differences on that, whether the Senate Intelligence Committee is a preferable item, Senate Judiciary or some blend of those two, but they have not reached a resolution on that.

So I hope I have conveyed to the gentleman that while I understand the concern, which I share, of getting this done, I was not happy in August. I voted against the bill in August as the gentleman knows. An overwhelming majority of this caucus voted against that legislation. However, many people voted for it, justifiably in the sense that we needed to get something done for the interim and set a time limit on it so that we would not be vulnerable if, in fact, we were. But we think the FISA court needs to be involved in these issues.

So, again, what I'm trying to convey to you is these are very serious questions, and they need to be thoughtfully addressed, and I, for one, am very unenthusiastic about addressing these issues on the horn of hours to go before a bill expires.

I urge the Senate not to do that to us, and we are about to find ourselves in that position. I'm not happy about it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

In that context, can I ask the distinguished Republican whip whether or not, if we find ourselves in that position, whether you believe your side of the aisle would be prepared to support a 30-day extension so that we would not get into that position that you're concerned about, that if something came to light that the administration and/or NSA and the intelligence community felt ought to warrant action, that they would then be able to request such action during that additional 30 days while we see if both bodies can act?

If the gentleman would yield?

I think you raise an important concern. I think we all agree on the concern. I think also there are concerns about what the Congress did in creating the FISA court, the purpose of the FISA court. The concern with respect to executive action on intercepting communications, certainly domestically, should be overseen by the court, and to the extent that there may be spillover from foreign interceptions to domestic interceptions, that ought to be of concern to us as well.

You are correct, these are very serious matters, and I would hope that they would be addressed as such from all perspectives.

What the 30-day extension does is, if the Senate, and I would suggest the Senate has not acted in a timely manner. You're going on your retreat. I'd like to get a better word than ``retreat,'' but in any event, you're going on your retreat this week. We're doing the same next week. So essentially we have two legislative days left, and one of those, of course, is a 6:30 day, and the Senate says they're going to take this bill up Thursday. Let's assume they pass it on Thursday, which I don't assume. That gives us 1 day. The Senate knows our schedule. That is not fair to the Members of this House. It's not fair to the country. It's not fair to the Constitution.

And so I would hope that if we find ourselves in that position, as I think we do, that we could agree to preclude the fear that you have and give another 30 days for the process to work, for us to go to conference if the Senate has passed a bill, to go to conference, and hopefully the Senate will go to conference. The Senate hasn't been very inclined to go to conference. We're not pleased with that. I don't think you're pleased with that.

We share that in common, and I think we're in that position, that a 30-day extension is a reasonable time in which to give the Congress of the United States, Senate and the House, to try to come together, resolve some very serious issues on which there are differences of opinion, and I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank the distinguished Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House will not be in session, in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, which was on January 15, but will be celebrated and honored on Monday.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills, as is the normal course, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. On Wednesday, we will also take up the President's veto of the children's health insurance legislation.

The House will not be in session on Thursday or Friday. The minority party is having its conference at that point in time, as we will have the following week.

I thank the gentleman for his question. As he and I have discussed and as he knows, I am disappointed that we are not in conference on the FISA bill. The Senate has not yet passed its version of the FISA bill. As you know, we passed the FISA bill in December. I think it was early December, as a matter of fact. And we understand that the legislation we passed last August has an expiration date of February 1 and that, therefore, we will either be acting under the old law, an extended law, or a revision that we might pass.

The leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, has talked about perhaps a 30- day extension. I have not talked to him about that personally, but I know that they are considering that. I also know that it is the Senate's intention to address this issue upon their return next week. As you know, they will be in most of the week next week, I think, so we will have to see probably the end of next week where the other body is so that we might better judge where we need to be.

First of all, I share the gentleman's view, and my expectation is that the authorization bill we passed yesterday will be passed by the Senate as was passed here. Because, as you

know, the only thing we did was modify, consistent with an agreement with the administration and the Senate, the provision that the administration vetoed the bill on. So my expectation is it will pass whole.

Now, as the gentleman observes, there is an interest I think perhaps on both sides of the aisle in considering the provision that was modified and essentially a part of it taken out of the bill. There is interest in considering that bill. That has been discussed with Mr. Skelton, and Mr. Skelton and the committee are looking at that.

I believe, and I don't have confirmation of that, that there were Members who have talked to me who are in fact introducing a bill to speak to that particular point. I say ``I believe'' because, again, I don't have confirmation that that bill has been introduced, but I know that there were Members very focused on that, very concerned. As you know, this provision dealt with the ability of some of our former soldiers, in particular marines, injured by, tortured by the Saddam Hussein regime and being compensated for that to which they had been subjected. I know there is a lot of concern about making sure that litigants who have gotten judgments have an opportunity to execute on those judgments. The President was concerned about that.

So I think the short answer to your question is it either has been introduced, or going to be introduced maybe next week. Mr. Skelton has indicated that he will look at that.

If my friend will yield.

When you indicate we reached bipartisan agreement, what we reached bipartisan agreement on was, obviously, that the bill, as you point out, had many important provisions, not only the pay that you refer to, the wounded warriors, treatment of veterans medically, as well as meeting our defense needs, all of which we did have an agreement on and we passed that bill. There was bipartisan agreement that if we were going to pass that bill with all those important provisions in it, that it was necessary to consider the matter that the President was opposed to separately and apart, and take it out, which was done.

But certainly all of the Members on my side did not believe that the President's veto was appropriate. So I don't want to mislead anybody that there was a bipartisan agreement that his veto was appropriate in that sense and that there was a consensus on that. There was disagreement on that.

I understand the gentleman's point, but as the gentleman well knows, there are opposing views to that point. But certainly now, as the gentleman observed, is not the time to debate it. I think the answer to your question is that it may well be before us again.

Madam 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, January 22, for morning-hour debate.

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

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 4, 2007, providing for morning-hour debate be extended for the remainder of the 110th Congress, except that pursuant to House Resolution 915, the date of May 12, 2008, shall be used in lieu of May 14, 2007.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of a dear friend of mine, Judge Ernest Loveless, and to offer my condolences to his family on his passing.

In the State of Maryland, few judges commanded more respect than Judge Loveless. First appointed to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 1960, Judge Loveless rose to the position of Chief judge in 1976. Serving on the bench until his retirement in 1992, Judge Loveless left behind a legacy of fair rulings and a more effective and efficient court.

During his 32 years on the 7th Circuit, Judge Loveless became known for his management skills. As the populations of Prince George's County and southern Maryland grew in the 1970s, Judge Loveless recognized the need to update the court's systems to better enable it to handle the increased caseload. He succeeded in installing new computer systems, and he made other necessary changes to help the 7th Circuit keep pace with the changing times.

Known across our State as an expert on juvenile law, Judge Loveless presided over thousands of adoption cases, even adopting two children of his own. He had the foresight to hire a resident psychologist to assist with family law matters, a valuable asset to the court and the cases it handles.

On a personal note, I believe it was clear to all who knew him that serving others was a deeply held value for Judge Loveless. Before becoming a judge, he served our Nation proudly in the Navy during World War II, and he then went on to serve the people of Maryland in the House of Delegates from 1954 to 1960. He was active in several civic organizations in Clinton, MD, and he continued to contribute to the community throughout his life.

Madam Speaker, Judge Loveless was a good and honest man who lived an honorable life, and he will long be remembered in southern Maryland and Prince George's County for his devotion, his knowledge of the law, and his fairness. I join countless Marylanders whose lives were touched by Judge Loveless in sending my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman.

What an ironic argument my friend from Wisconsin makes. We said we were going to have a PAYGO rule. We have voted consistently for PAYGO.

We have paid for that which we have bought with 80 percent cuts and 20 percent increases in revenues.

What an ironic argument he makes that somehow now we are not following that because nobody on this floor believes that 19 or 23 million, take your pick, Americans are going to get a tax cut on which President Bush has relied in every budget he has sent to us except the year of that particular budget. But the revenues have always been relied upon in his budget numbers. You didn't change it. You were in charge for 6 years.

Ironic, because the only reason we have to do this tonight in this fashion and not ask the wealthiest in America, I don't mean people making $10 million, I don't mean people making $100 million a year, but people making $500 million a year, don't have to pay their fair share. That is what this is about. That is what we have been forced to on this day on this floor and in the other body. Because what is happening is what traditionally happens, the wealthiest and most powerful in America are protected on this floor from paying their fair share.

This is not about class warfare. This is about once again saying to the middle class, We are not here to protect you. We are here to protect the wealthiest in America from paying their fair share, which is what PAYGO is all about.

My young friend says that the economy is in trouble. The Democrats have not been able to pass one thing in the last 7 years to impact this economy. Not one. It is all on your watch, I say to my friends; all your watch.

And you told us in 2001 and 2003 if we passed your economic program and continue to follow that the economy would grow and expand, and now you say it is contracting and in trouble. I agree, it is. Why? Because your economic program is a failed program that took us from $5.6 trillion of surplus, four budget surplus years in a row, and has taken us deeply into debt and deficit. And yes, facing recession in the eye because your economic program is a failed policy.

And I am angry about it. Why am I angry about it? Because I have a great granddaughter who is 13 months old. I have a granddaughter who is 5 years of age, just starting kindergarten. And I have another granddaughter who is 21. She has a daughter, and I am worried about continuing to pursue this path of debt piled on debt, piled on debt, piled on debt.

The only reason this bill is not paid for is because Republicans, in lockstep almost, in both bodies, have precluded us from paying for this, which everybody wants to do, and that is to relieve the tax burden on those who are confronted with a tax that everybody agrees was not meant for them. It was meant for the wealthy.

So who is being protected by this? The wealthy, whom this tax was intended to hit.

So when you get up here and tell me nobody intended the tax to hit, that is correct. But the people you are protecting are the people it was specifically intended to impact, to pay their fair share, not to run offshore and avoid taxes, not to have their taxes computed at 15 percent while all of us pay 35 percent. That's what this is about.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, what we do tonight I will not support if we do it. I have a lot of people who live in my district who will be confronted with the alternative minimum tax. I don't want them confronted by the alternative minimum tax. But if we are going to continue to buy, if we are going to do what we will do later tonight, part of the $196.4 billion that you're spending of the legacy of those children that I just mentioned of mine, which you are not going to pay for, and you said this enterprise will cost $60 billion.

This administration has been a failed administration economically and a failed administration fiscally. But you continue to pursue these policies, and we are forced today to recognize that

we don't have the votes to pursue the pay-as-you-go principle that we adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1990, we reaffirmed with many of you voting for it in 2007, and which you abandoned in 2001. And deep deficits and now economic recession facing us is the result.

I don't urge my colleagues to vote for this bill as I usually do when we bring something to the floor. This is on suspension not because we believe, in my opinion, many of us, that this is good policy, but because we are faced with two stark alternatives: A President who will veto paying for things that we buy, a President who will veto this bill if it is paid for, responsible fiscal policy; and a Senate that will not vote with us and, frankly, House Republicans who won't vote for this. But we can pass it here, as we did twice. Twice we have passed this fix, and we have paid for it.

This is a sad day for America. It is a sad day for my three grandchildren and my great granddaughter, 13 months of age, on whom we will pile an additional $80 billion of debt with this vote tonight if it passes. So $50-some-odd billion and then the interest to follow, she will have to pay that.

We ought to pay our bills. We talk about personal responsibility. We ought to have the personal responsibility in this generation to pay for what we buy. I regret this day and this bill.

Madam Speaker, I believe that every single Member of this body--on both sides of the aisle--agrees that we must protect middle-income Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to ensure that wealthy Americans pay their fair share.

The question that divides us is this:

Will we enact a fiscally responsible 1-year patch to the AMT that prevents 23 million Americans from paying more in Federal income taxes under the AMT than they otherwise would pay under our standard tax system?

Or, will we take the easy route, the politically expedient route, the fiscally irresponsible route, and enact an unpaid-for, 1-year patch that tacks another $50 billion--yes, $50 billion--onto the deficit and debt, and immorally forces our children and grandchildren to pay our bills?

For months, Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill have fought to do the right thing--to enact a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is paid for by, among other things, closing a tax loophole that permits many of the wealthiest people in our Nation from denominating their income as ``capital gains,'' and thereby allowing them to pay the 15-percent capital gains tax rate rather than the higher marginal income tax rate.

Time after time after time, House and Senate Republicans rejected our ``pay-fors,'' and demanded that we take the fiscally irresponsible route--and enact an AMT patch that adds $50 billion to the national debt.

Madam Speaker, there is no small irony in the fact that the President and his Republican allies in Congress have fought all year long to prevent Democrats from adding $23 billion in funding for domestic priorities while they have no compunction about voting to add $50 billion to the deficit and debt.

No small irony. Only gross irresponsibility.

Let no one be mistaken: The Republican position on the AMT is part and parcel of an almost theological belief in supply-side economics that is demonstrably false.

The Minority Leader, Mr. Boehner, recently stated: ``Tax relief pays for itself.''

And, the President himself has stated: ``You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase.''

The facts, however, show otherwise:

In the last 7 years, the Republican party's economic policies have erased a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, instigated record budget deficits, and added more than $3.4 trillion to the national debt.

As my good friend, Congressman Tanner of Tennessee, recently pointed out: Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has increased by $1.37 billion per day; $57 million per hour; and $948,907 per minute.

This, of course, is the record of a President and Republicans in Congress who pretend that they are ``fiscally responsible.''

And today, they don't bat an eye at adding another $50 billion to the debt.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is on a perilous course.

Just listen to our non-partisan Comptroller General, David Walker, who stated last year: ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.''

Democrats recognize the danger of continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path--and in one of our first acts back in the majority, we reinstated the Pay-As-You-Go budget rules that Republicans formerly supported and which are credited with restoring fiscal discipline in the 1990s.

Today, we will protect 23 million middle-income Americans from bearing the brunt of the dreaded AMT--a tax they should not pay, a tax that must be permanently reformed.

And we should also be passing a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is revenue-neutral--a position supported by the President in his budgets.

However, it is regrettable and, yes, shameful that we will not be doing so because the President and his allies in Congress have insisted on political expedience and fiscal irresponsibility.

Madam Speaker, rarely do I avail myself of this opportunity, but I do so today to recognize the extraordinary contributions of an extraordinary man, extraordinary woman and extraordinary family.

The holiday season is traditionally a season of giving. Today I would like to take just a few minutes to recognize the vital contributions of a man and his family who have continually given his time, his energy and his efforts to the residents of St. Mary's County and to southern Maryland, which I am honored to represent in this body, my dear and great friend Dr. Vinod K. Shah, affectionately known as Vinnie or

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day for the House of Representatives; it's a historic day for the

Dean of the House; it's a historic day for the leadership of this House; and it will be, I think, viewed as a very important day for America and our energy independence and for our effort to keep our environment sustainable.

I want to thank and congratulate the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I said this when we last considered the bill on this floor; no Member of this body has focused more on energy and energy policy, energy independence, throughout the years than has the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell.

Save for his singular focus on ensuring the health of all Americans and their availability of affordable health care, quality health care, his focus on energy and energy independence and efficient use of energy has been unmatched, and I congratulate him for that.

As he said when this bill passed out of the House, it wasn't the perfect bill. There are many of us in this House who would have hoped that the Senate would not have removed some of the items that were in this bill when it came from the House.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this landmark bipartisan legislation, the Energy Independence and Security Act, represents a vital turning point for our Nation and a historic accomplishment for this Congress.

Today, we set a new direction for this country in the area of energy policy. Our Nation's energy policy is inextricably linked to our national security, our economic security, and our environmental well- being.

And, I have long believed that we must summon our national will, resources and ingenuity to make significant gains in technology, conservation, vehicle efficiency, and the use of alternative fuels in order to end our reliance on foreign oil and other important sources of energy. To that extent, this bill was and remains a vital national security interest.

With this legislation, we will move toward real energy independence that results in a stronger economy, more jobs, and healthier communities. The Chairs and ranking members that worked tirelessly to produce this bill are also to be congratulated.

Under the leadership of Chairman Dingell, as I have said, this bill includes historic fuel economy, renewable fuels, and energy efficiency provisions.

The increase in the fuel efficiency of vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is the first in a generation, and is supported by environmentalists and the automobile industry, in no small part because of the work of Chairman Dingell.

Furthermore, it will result in $22 billion in net annual consumer savings by 2020 and reduce greenhouse gases in an amount equal to taking off the road 28 million of today's average cars and trucks.

Among other things, this bill will reduce our reliance on foreign oil by investing in the production and infrastructure needed to deploy homegrown biofuels. It provides incentives for plug-in hybrid cars. And it includes landmark energy efficiency provisions that will save consumers and businesses at least $300 billion through 2030.

Let no one be mistaken, this bill, while comprehensive, does not represent the totality of our energy policy. There is still much more to do, and we will be about that business.

For example, we should take up legislation to establish a renewable portfolio standard and extend the production tax credit, and do so promptly. We also should continue to work across the aisle and with the Senate to reach further consensus on issues such as the use of renewables, the development of new technologies, and the fiscally responsible extension of needed energy tax provisions.

Mr. Speaker, when we started this session, we started it on a historic note and swore in the first woman Speaker in the history of America, in the history of this House of over 200 years. As she was sworn in, we had literally scores of children who surrounded the Speaker. And she intoned that this would be the ``children's Congress,'' it would be the ``children's Congress,'' and it would look to the future, not the past. And this bill looks to the future of energy use, of energy efficiency, of energy security, and of the health of this tiny globe on which all of us survive and hopefully thrive.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a historic turning point in America's energy policy. And I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for our children, for our future, for our security, vote for this historic piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.