Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering one of the most important human rights measures we have dealt with all year--a bill related to the world's worst ongoing humanitarian disaster, the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. This measure is about changing direction, showing the world that the United States will not stand idly by--as the international community shamefully did in Rwanda in 1994. This measure is inspired by the apartheid-era legislation that this Congress proudly initiated, which helped bring about the end of one of the most cruel, racist, violent regimes in modern history.

Next year marks the fifth anniversary of the genocide in Darfur. That is five years of raping

and pillaging, of displacement of millions of innocent men, women and children. Today, the question that we must ask ourselves as Americans, and as human beings, is this: Will we respond with apathy or with action to stop this ongoing tragedy? I submit that there can be only one answer: We--and by ``we'' I mean the international community-- cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the Darfurians' suffering and plight.

Today's measure--the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007--is a call to action. It authorizes states, local governments and universities to divest from companies doing business in the military, power production, oil-related, or mineral extraction industries in partnership with the government of Sudan. Further, it provides safe harbor to mutual funds and pension plans choosing to divest their assets in such companies. And finally, it prohibits the federal government from entering into new federal contracts with these offending companies. No longer will Americans have to worry that their tax dollars are going to companies that support the inhumane regime in Khartoum.

The bill we will pass today and send to the President is just one piece of a multi-faceted effort to address the crisis in Darfur. This solution must include not only full and speedy implementation of the United Nations/African Union hybrid peacekeeping force, but also international support for a single, unified peacemaking process. I have been extremely disappointed in both the rebel leaders and government officials who continue to choose violence over peace and have declined to participate in peace talks. However, we must continue to push for progress toward a ceasefire and a viable political solution for this ravaged land. Finally, and equally importantly, a solution in Darfur must include a sustained and secure role for the courageous humanitarian workers, who risk their lives daily because they are so committed to alleviating the suffering of their fellow human beings.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has been a leader in this Congress on the issue of Darfur, who traveled with me to Darfur in April, and who sponsored the original Darfur Divestment measure, H.R. 180--which I was so pleased to cosponsor and which passed the House 418 to 1. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I met Andy Jacobs in the Young Democrats, many, many years ago. I drove Andy Jacobs to a speaking engagement at the Young Democrats at a restaurant not too far from the Baltimore Washington International Airport. A few years later I was elected to Congress, and Andy Jacobs was a Member of the Congress of the United States, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, an extraordinary Member of this House. And there came a time shortly thereafter when Andy decided to retire. And there were a number of people who expressed an interest in running for this seat. Andy came to me and he said Julia Carson's going to win this race. You be for Julia Carson.

Our beloved colleague, Joe Donnelly has just said, she never lost a race.

Now, I didn't know Julia Carson. And there were some pretty active people, men and women, in that race; and we had met a couple of them. They were pretty impressive. I had not met Julia Carson. But Andy Jacobs, her predecessor, a Congressman for some 25 years, at least, said to me, Julia Carson's going to win this race. And sure enough, Julia Carson won the race. And those of us who served in this body had the privilege of getting to know Julia Carson, getting to know her as a friend, getting to know her as a colleague, getting to know her as a leader in her community.

I went to Indianapolis. I see my friend, my very, very close and dear friend Baron Hill here. Baron and I have been in Indianapolis a number of times, and I did a number of fund-raisers in Indianapolis for and with Julia. And then in the last campaign I went out to Indianapolis to be with Julia and we were at a senior citizens center, and it was the essence of Julia Carson. Julia Carson, who was sort of one of the most, ``acerbic'' is not the right word, I've been searching for the right word, but Julia could be very direct. And there was no fooling around. You knew where Julia stood and you knew what she was thinking. She didn't have time for just jiving. She knew what she wanted to say, she knew what she wanted to do and she told you.

And I went to the senior center, and I spoke on her behalf. But so many people were speaking on her behalf. It was thought to be a tough campaign. She won better than she was expected to win. But you got the essence of Julia Carson as you went around and talked to those seniors who had been active in the community for many, many years, as Julia had been, who worked herself up to be a Member of Congress, but she was not appointed by anybody.

The community loved Julia Carson. And when I say the community, the community writ large, not the African American community, the white community, this community or that. The community, writ large, loved Julia Carson because she was honest, she was direct, she cared and she worked hard for her people. Julia Carson was an asset to her district, to Indianapolis, to Indiana, to this institution, the House of Representatives, and to our country.

Julia Carson is now back home in Indiana. We'll miss her. But this body was better for her service. And I thank the gentlelady for giving me this brief time to pay honor to a great woman and a great American.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation that is before us will fund our government this calendar year. That was not done last year. Would that it had been done sooner. Would that it had addressed the priorities that we believe the American public supported strongly in November of last year. Would that we were investing the appropriate amounts in education, in health care, in the environment and community health centers and NIH basic biomedical research. Would that we funded them at reasonable levels.

The President indicated that he was going to veto, as Mr. Lewis said, a bill that was not at his figures. I have observed that this President believes that his budget was sent down on tablets, not on paper. I think that's unfortunate.

The Constitution of the United States, of course, gives to the Congress of the United States sole authority to set policies for the United States. In fact, our Founding Fathers never contemplated the budget autonomy that this administration has sought for itself.

However, having said that, as Mr. Obey, our chairman has said, rightfully, the votes are what they are. The necessity to come to compromise in a democracy is inescapable if, in fact, both sides can create stalemate. In this instance both sides could create stalemate. That is not, however, the objective of our side. We believe that we ought to, and have a responsibility to, fund our government. This bill does that. This bill does that after having passed all 12 of our appropriation bills prior to the August recess. Unfortunately, we find ourselves at this late date, however, not having completed all of our conference reports and having to move forward.

This bill is a relatively long bill, not the longest bill we will have considered in this manner, but a relatively long bill. It looks even longer if you only print on one side of the page to make a more dramatic presentation.

Having said that, this bill incorporates all of the bills that passed this house. This is not as if these are items of first impression. They are bills that we considered in this House and passed with essentially overwhelming bipartisan votes.

I remember when Mr. Lewis' side was in charge of the House and they got five or six Democrats to vote for it, it was a bipartisan bill. We've averaged 60 votes, if you take out the Legislative bill, on which essentially games were being played, and perhaps the Foreign Ops bill. You have over 60 average votes on the Republican side.

This is bipartisan legislation. Ninety-five percent of the bill that is presented here has been considered before. I want to congratulate Mr. Obey for the work that he's done. I want to congratulate Mr. Lewis for the work he's done.

More specifically, I want to thank the staff. The staff rightfully ought to be exhausted. This staff has spent unbelievable amounts of time in putting this bill together.

It is like every bill we pass, not a perfect bill. It is a bill, as Mr. Lewis said, that the President has indicated that he might possibly sign. That is, after all, the reality in a democratic environment, where you have the people, having selected a Democratic House, and as one of my friends observed the other day, they elected a third in the Senate. Two-thirds of the United States Senate was elected in 2002 and 2004. Only a third of the Senate was elected in this last election. So it may not be as reflective of the will of the American people as this House is.

This House did its business on time. This House passed responsible bills. Yes, it was $22 billion over. Mr. Lewis may be surprised to know that from 2002 to 2006 he spent more on discretionary spending. I know you are going to want to hear this figure: you spent a higher percentage of GDP on discretionary spending than these bills do.

We have invested. We believe the investments included in this bill are the minimal that we ought to make, and we're hopeful that Members on both sides of the aisle can vote for this bill in a nonpartisan, bipartisan fashion. There will be some who vote against these bills because essentially they believe we ought not to be investing significant sums in education and in health care and public safety. The President's budget reflected that philosophy. That is not our philosophy. It's not the philosophy, we believe, of the American people.

So, my friends in this House, I would urge as we come to the end of this session that we pass this bill. It is not what each and every one of us wanted in this bill. There's more perhaps in

this bill than some want and less than some others want, but it is in the exercise of the democratic process the possible. It funds our government, it moves us forward, and it is worthy of our support.

I thank the chairman; and, yes, I thank the ranking member for their work, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this omnibus appropriation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an important bill with an important objective, and the objective is to protect our country and to protect our Constitution.

Ironically, the ranking member has just said that by having oversight, by having checks and balance on the intelligence community, somehow we politicize it. Our Founding Fathers, in the best sense of politicalization, wanted the civil sector to be involved. That's the purposes of this committee, I suggest to my friend.

The fact of the matter is the intelligence community conducts critically important activities that we want them to conduct. But we give them extraordinary powers, and because of that, we need to make sure that they're not politicized. In fact, the irony is that I think most objective observers would say two things: first of all, that the defense establishment of our country has been probably the most politicized it's been in my 26 years in the Congress of the United States. That is not true, in my opinion, with the present Secretary, by the way, or with the present Deputy Secretary.

Secondly, they have abandoned oversight. I have said many times that the previous Congress and the Congress before that and the Congress before that exercised less oversight than any previous Congress in which I've served. In fact, there was much more oversight by the Democratic Congress of the Clinton administration, in terms of oversight hearings, numbers, depth, than there was in the entire framework of the last 6 years under Republicans in the House, the Senate, and in the White House. This is a serious piece of legislation; it requires serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, my good friend, Congressman Reyes of Texas, and Mr. Hoekstra as well, who I think brings experience and judgment to this issue, although we have significant disagreements.

This, as the chairman has said, is the first authorization bill in 3 years to come to this floor. This authorization bill ought to come to the floor every year. Let me say briefly that this conference report enhances oversight. The reason, in my opinion, authorization bills didn't come to the floor in the last Congress is because oversight was not, as I said, as important. I've been disappointed with the oversight that's been exercised not only by this committee, but by others.

This conference report comes to the floor to enhance oversight and effective management of the intelligence community and expects and requires accountability. It enhances the management authority and flexibility of the Director of National Intelligence. Why? Because we want to have a more effective intelligence organization. And it authorizes new funding to improve the effectiveness of intelligence programs and activities. I would think all of us support those two efforts.

This legislation also includes an important provision, added in conference, that I want to talk about. It requires all American intelligence agencies and those under contract or subcontract with intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogations. Some find fault with that. I want to speak to that.

Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take decisive action to detect, disrupt and, yes, eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killings of innocent men and women and children in an effort to advance their twisted aims. No one on this floor should gainsay that that is not the objective of every Member of this body.

We can and we will act to prevail in the war on terror. However, in the pursuit of those who seek to harm us, we must not sacrifice the very ideals that distinguish us from those who preach death and destruction. Yet, under the current administration, we have seen that line blurred between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture. And there is no doubt our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result. Who said that? That's not a quote, but who said that essentially? Secretary Colin Powell, former four-star Army general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State in this administration.

The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well known, as are the administration's belief that the Geneva Convention against torture is ``quaint,'' and the Vice President's persistent effort to undermine the ban on torture championed by whom? Senator John McCain of Arizona, Republican candidate for President.

Just last week we learned that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed, perhaps illegally, videotapes or interrogations conducted by American agents. These incidents unfortunately sully our great Nation's well-deserved good reputation. They raise questions about our commitment to human rights and the rule of law. And they allow our enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred.

This provision requires all intelligence agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual on interrogations. It is an attempt by this Congress to repair the damage that has already been done.

Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as both effective and consistent with our international commitments, and very importantly, with the safety of our members of the Armed Forces.

At this time I will include a letter in the Record. The letter is signed by, and I will not take the time to read all of the generals, but there are four four-star generals. A four-star general is as high as you can go in the Armed Forces of the United States, except when we're in a world war, in which we accord a fifth-star.

December 12, 2007.

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,

Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC.

Hon. Silvestre Reyes,

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Reyes and Chairman Rockefeller: As retired

military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to

express our strong support for Section 327 of the Conference

Report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2008, H.R. 2082. Section 327 would require intelligence

agents of the U.S. government to adhere to the standards of

prisoner treatment and interrogation contained in the U.S.

Army Field Manual on Human Collector Operations (the Army

Field Manual).

We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women

in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of

interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted

by the enemy against captured Americans. That principle,

embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of

American military personnel in combat. The current situation,

in which the military operates under one set of interrogation

rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate,

secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical. In order to

ensure adherence across the government to the requirements of

the Geneva Conventions and to maintain the integrity of the

humane treatment standards on which our own troops rely, we

believe that all U.S. personnel--military and civilian--

should be held to a single standard of humane treatment

reflected in the Army Field Manual.

The Field Manual is the product of decades of practical

experience and was updated last year to reflect lessons

learned from the current conflict. Interrogation methods

authorized by the Field Manual have proven effective in

eliciting vital intelligence from dangerous enemy prisoners.

Some have argued that the Field Manual rules are too

simplistic for civilian interrogators. We reject that

argument. Interrogation methods authorized in the Field

Manual are sophisticated and flexible. And the principles

reflected in the Field Manual are values that no U.S. agency

should violate.

General David Petraeus underscored this point in an open

letter to the troops in May in which he cautioned against the

use of interrogation techniques not authorized by the Field

Manual:

What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight . . . is

how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the

standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants

and detainees with dignity and respect. . . . Some may argue

that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or

other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy.

They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions

are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently

neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical

action can make someone ``talk;'' however, what the

individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our

experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out

in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence

Collector Operations that was published last year shows that

the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in

eliciting information from detainees.

Employing interrogation methods that violate the Field

Manual is not only unnecessary, but poses enormous risks.

These methods generate information of dubious value, reliance

upon which can lead to disastrous consequences. Moreover,

revelation of the use of such techniques does immense damage

to the reputation and moral authority of the United States

essential to our efforts to combat terrorism.

This is a defining issue for America. We urge you to

support the adoption of Section 327 of the Conference Report

and thereby send a clear message--to U.S. personnel and to

the world--that the United States will not engage in or

condone the abuse of prisoners and will honor its commitments

to uphold the Geneva Conventions.

Sincerely,

General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.).

General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.).

General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.).

General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.).

General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.).

Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.).

Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.).

Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.).

Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.).

Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.).

Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.).

Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.).

Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.).

Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.).

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.).

Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.).

Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.).

Major General Antonio ``Tony'' M. Taguba, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.).

Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.).

Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.).

Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).

There are many lieutenant generals, admirals, vice admirals, brigadier generals, major generals, all of whom are concerned about defeating terrorism. And this is what they say:

``As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to express,'' on December 12, 2007, just a few days ago, ``we write to express our strong support for section 327 of the conference report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.''

And then this paragraph, and I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to this paragraph from those who have worn the uniform of the United States of America, who have themselves, before they became generals, fought in the battles that America has sent them to, and fought for the freedom of this country, and

confronted the terrorists of their day and today. Hear this paragraph from those who have been at war and who want to protect their troops, our troops, American men and women.

They say this: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform for the United States not to sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans.'' That is the critical point.

We are a nation that believes in the premise of doing unto others what we would have them do to us. Our own enemies do not accept that premise. Our enemies do not accept that value. Our enemies are different than we are. We must not become what we confront. The techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual, as I say, are endorsed by all of these generals. General Krulak in particular wrote a very compelling op-ed piece on this issue in the Washington Post. General Krulak is probably known as one of the toughest commandants the Marine Corps has ever had. I served with him on the Board of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy. He is as tough as they come. And he says, Protect our people, adopt this sanction.

Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the Armed Forces in Iraq in May, just a few months ago, General Petraeus, four-star general, heading our effort to confront, supposedly, terrorism and, I believe, terrorism in Iraq. ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal,'' Petraeus's words, General Petraeus's word, ``history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.'' General Petraeus continued, ``Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone `talk'; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. Our experience in applying interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.''

This is General Petraeus who wants to keep his troops safe and wants to prevent terrorist attacks on his people under his command.

Inexplicably, the administration has issued a veto threat on this conference report because it would require all intelligence agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual. I believe that the administration's position is indefensible. This is not a question of whether we must combat and defeat terrorists. Of course, we must. However, we must never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant, that we stooped to the depths of the dictator.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not for party but for country, not for partisanship but for a reverence for the constitutional oath we took, I urge us all, let's demonstrate our commitment to the values that make us Americans. Let's begin to repair and restore this Nation's reputation. Let's adopt this conference report.

I thank the chairman for the time. I thank him for his leadership. I thank Mr. Hoekstra, as well.

One week longer than I had hoped.

I thank the gentleman. On Monday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business with any votes ordered postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.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, and most of those bills will be announced before the close of business tomorrow.

We will also expect further action on the following items: energy legislation, terrorism risk insurance, the fiscal 2008 appropriations package, the alternative minimum tax, the children's health insurance program. And there may be within the children's health program, depending on what the Senate does, dealing with the reimbursement of providers under Medicare, the docs.

I might also add to that, Members ought to know it is possible that depending upon the administrative work that can be accomplished over the next 4 or 5 days, it is possible that Monday night we might consider the omnibus appropriation bill. I mention that, but I want you to know that that is possible.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey, has made it very clear that he wants to, although this is essentially an amendment, he wants to meet the 24-hour notice so that Members have 24 hours. So that would require Sunday night, we hope we can reach Sunday, for the posting of the bill on the Rules Committee Web site, which is usually how notice is given. And we are hopeful that will be done by Sunday night so that by Monday night it would be hopefully ready for consideration.

I want to say that the energy legislation will be considered, assuming we get the bill from the Senate, assuming we are ready to do that, considered done on Tuesday.

Energy legislation will be considered on Tuesday.

As you know, in our bill that we sent to the Senate, which the Senate did not pass, and it is still pending in the Senate, we made provision for the doctors reimbursement, which is going to be cut by 10 percent, as you know, on January 1. As a result of that, we are very concerned that there are some providers that may feel they no longer can afford to give services to those under Medicare. We think that is something that none of us want to have happen, so I wanted to put you on notice, so you knew that that was a possibility if their agreement could be reached on that issue. As you know, the Senate has not passed it.

But I am mentioning SCHIP, they may be combined, they may not be, I don't know, because that is a health care issue, and we have been talking about it as a combined. I wanted you to simply know that when I mentioned SCHIP that may well be subsumed in that or a separate item, if, in fact, agreement can be reached.

The Senate bill is still in the Senate, as I understand it. We have passed, as you know, a House bill with a different pay-for so that the deficit is not increased by our actions. As you know, on this side of the aisle we feel very strongly, I underline ``very,'' strongly that the alternative minimum tax, I think to a Member, agree was not intended to affect some of the people that it will affect if it is not modified. We want to modify it, but we don't want to modify it at the expense of our children and grandchildren having to fill the hole that will be left by the loss in revenues on which the administration has counted in its budgets for not this year but succeeding years for the next 9 years. If that money is not there and expenditures are not cut, or revenues are not raised, then we will

increase the budget deficit by a very substantial amount, billions and billions of dollars, at least $100 billion just by this one action. So we have passed a bill. The Senate has passed a bill. The Senate still has its bill. It has not passed over here.

I understand the gentleman's position, but you understand for the last 5 or 6 years the Republican budgets have done the same thing.

I appreciate the gentleman's observation about the 1997. I don't believe that was paid for either. I am not absolutely positive on that, but that is why I believe the veto occurred. But we all agree we ought to eliminate the AMT. But there is no doubt there is a very significant philosophical and policy difference between the President and your side and our side in terms of whether or not, when you eliminate and you make the patch, there is no money to do the patch. So when you take that money away, you have to fill it either with borrowing, as we have done over the last number of years, or you fill it with additional revenues. If you fill it with additional revenues, future generations are not paying the bill. If you fill it with borrowing or just leaving the emergency spending hole, future generations have to pay for it.

Now, I know we disagree on that, but it is, I think, a very honest philosophical and policy difference, and the bills reflect that.

I think we all agree that we want to get our work done. We have had great difficulty doing that. Not so much in this body because this body, whether your side is in charge or my side is in charge, we have a Rules Committee, we can structure debate, and the majority rules.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, the majority does not rule. The Senate has decided that they will let the minority rule. They did that when we were in the majority, and it was done when your party was in the majority. We have both discussed the problems that causes a body that can, in fact, allow the majority to rule. Having said that, we are working towards trying to do what the gentleman suggested, getting our work done. To the extent that we can cooperate with one another, that will facilitate that objective.

We do find agreement from time to time, apparently.

MR. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

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

I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I want to say at the outset that I am pleased that Mr. McCrery is on the floor. There will be other times to say this, but Mr. McCrery is one of the respected Members of this House. I think he serves us well as ranking member of the Ways and Means. I know he'd rather be chairman of the Ways and Means, but we like him as ranking member. He has indicated he is not going to be with us in the next Congress. That's regrettable because he is one of the good Members of this Congress, and I want to say that to my friend.

Now, let me talk about the question at hand. Mr. Speaker, we debate here in the House, and many Americans have the opportunity to see this debate. This debate is a relatively simple

debate. It's not just about the alternative minimum tax or the consequences of not putting a so-called patch, and nobody in America knows what that means but simply it means saying that the alternative minimum tax won't affect 25 or so million people in America. None of us on either side of the aisle want that to happen. The issue is not whether or not any of us feel that ought to happen. It is do you pay for it? Do you provide for the revenue fix that will be necessary if we cut that revenue?

Let me say to my friend from Louisiana, he has said a number of times on this floor that the President didn't count the revenue for this year from the AMT. He didn't provide the money to pay for it. He simply didn't anticipate the revenue. What he did not say, however, is that the President did anticipate the revenue for the next 9 years. Furthermore, the President anticipated in 2006 that we would have the revenue generated by the AMT in the year we're going to so-called fix, so that the administration sent us a budget counting on this revenue that we are about to say we won't receive.

So I tell my friend from Louisiana, it is somewhat misleading, I think, not intentionally, I understand, to say that the President didn't rely on the revenue for this budget. That's true. He relied on it last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and in 2001. And he relied on it, I tell my friend, to offset your tax cuts because, as you recall, in your 2003 tax cut, part of the revenue that was anticipated was this revenue that the gentleman says he does not want to collect and that the President is not relying on for 2007. He's accurate but in a very narrow sense, because the President has relied upon it every other year.

I yield to my friend.

Is that a compliment or not?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct and that's my point. But in previous years the President has told us in his budget this revenue would be available, and he has relied on that to offset what would otherwise be larger deficits either as a result of tax cuts or of spending. He has relied on this money.

So what we are saying on this side of the aisle is let's pay for the revenue that the President anticipated if we're not going to take it, and none of us want to take the revenue that is generated by the alternative minimum tax in this fiscal year.

So, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't pay for it, what do we do? Because the President relied upon it in previous budgets, and, frankly, the Congress did as well on both sides of the aisle. If that revenue does not come in and we don't pay for it, there is only one thing to do: borrow. And this administration has borrowed more money from foreigners than any administration in history all together. From Washington to Clinton, all together they didn't borrow as much money as this President has borrowed from foreign governments and put our country at risk. We're saying let's stop that. And in the 1990s, ladies and gentlemen of this House, we said let's stop that. Who's ``we''? President Bush, the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate said let's stop that, and we adopted PAYGO. And in 1997 we had another agreement, and a Democratic President and a Republican Congress said let's continue that policy because we believe it's a good policy.

And just a few years ago, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, Jim Nussle, who is now the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said PAYGO is a policy that has worked, and we ought to pursue it. But as my friend knows, in 2001, we simply abandoned PAYGO. Why did we abandon PAYGO? Because demonstratively it had worked. For the previous 4 years we had, for the first time in the lifetime of anybody in this House of Representatives, had 4 budget years in a row that produced a surplus. Four. Why? Because we had a PAYGO in place. Why? Because when we wanted to take actions, we had to have the consequences of our actions and tell the American public it was not a free lunch. We would have to pay for it.

That's simply what this bill does. It pursues the policy of fiscal responsibility. It abandons the policy of fiscal irresponsibility and the pretense that there is a free lunch that we have been pursuing for the last 7 years and incurred that $1.6 trillion, give or take $100 billion, in the last 7 years.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, no one wants to have a tax increase for these 25 million people. It was never intended. But some of my Republican colleagues say we didn't intend this, so we ought not to pay for it. That's like saying I didn't intend to run the stop sign and have an accident, and therefore, we don't have to pay for the consequences. We have relied on this money, the President has relied on this money. But we're saying we're not going to collect it, but we will responsibly pay for it.

In closing, let me say that Charlie Rangel likes to quote Russell Long, who said, ``Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax the man behind the tree.'' Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen of the House, the policies that we pursue are not taxing me and not taxing thee, but taxing the children and the grandchildren behind the tree.

It takes courage to pay for things. The largest expansion in entitlement programs in the last 25 years was done with hardly any Democratic votes and all Republican votes, and it wasn't paid for. We were told that it was within the budget. It wasn't. It wasn't paid for. Our children and grandchildren will pay that bill.

Have the courage, the wisdom, and the good common sense to adopt this legislation, and urge our colleagues in the other body to share that courage, to share that common sense to morally step up to the plate and have this generation pay for what it buys. Pass this important bill and pay for it.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) each be allowed to control 15 minutes.

Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think perhaps we may not need to have a vote on this, I would agree, but there are some number of speakers on our side who would like to speak. I don't know whether we will have 10, maybe 15 speakers cumulatively. If the gentleman might prevail on his side, maybe we wouldn't ask people to come back for a vote, but we do have Members on our side who want to speak.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I was not going to participate in this debate, but the gentleman from New Jersey doesn't fully understand what we've been about for the last 2 months. He talked about the rank and file. Mr. Dingell, the senior Member of this House, myself, Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Members of the rank and file on your side of the aisle who had not voted for this bill and didn't vote to override the veto. Mr. Barton was in some of those meetings. Mr. Deal was in some of those meetings. We met for almost 100 hours with rank-and-file Members on your side because we felt so strongly we wanted to address some of the issues of concern.

We haven't gotten there yet, but I want to tell the gentleman, first of all, he says this bill is not for indigent children.

Medicaid is for indigent children. This is for children of hardworking Americans who are not making enough because either their employer doesn't provide insurance or they can't afford the insurance to cover their children. We tried very, very hard. I defy you, and you haven't been here that long, I understand that, but I defy you to find another instance where that many hours has been put in by such senior Members, including two of the most senior Republicans in the United States Senate who voted for this bill, as did 18 of their colleagues in the United States Senate, and 44 of your colleagues here voted for this bill, and 45 for the previous bill. This is a very significant bipartisan bill.

And this bill responded to some of the concerns raised by the President. You continue to talk about adults. There are parents on here at the States' choice, as you know. Your State's choice, my State's choice. However, we precluded, as you know, in this bill nonparents, and rather than a 2-year phaseout, we did a 1-year phaseout. We responded to the President's concern about $83,000. We capped it at 300 percent. We responded to the question of trying to identify and to make sure that we add people who are authorized to be in this country.

So I think the gentleman's comments about the Democratic Party, or Democrat, as he likes to refer to us, is totally inaccurate, I will tell my friend. We've worked very hard. Why have we worked very hard? Because we think that 4 million children who the President of the United States in 2004 got on the Republican National Convention floor seeking the votes of all of his fellow citizens to be re-elected as President of the United States, said, I want to add millions of children currently eligible to this program who are not yet served. I tell my friend that's what this bill does. That's why we are so surprised and disappointed that the President rejected this bill and vetoed it and said, as the Speaker said, I forbid this bill going into effect and adding those 4 million children.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I suggest that the gentleman refer to Mrs. Biggert to see whether or not she thought they were good-faith or extensive negotiations and discussions.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, and I am not going to get into further debate on this, I refer the gentleman to Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley and ask them whether they thought good-faith negotiations were pursued and whether or not they thought that we had gone as far as we possibly could in order to accommodate the adding of 4 million children.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary individual, who celebrated, on December 2, 2007, one of society's milestones, his 80th birthday. From a humble beginning as a student on a state scholarship at the University of Maryland, Jim rose to head one of the leading construction companies in the United States. Professionally, his lifetime has been filled with magnificent buildings and public spaces; his less-public achievements have been equally successful. Jim Clark is an individual of great kindness and generosity, exemplified by his philanthropic efforts. He has given generously and without reservation to his alma mater, his community and his country. By brilliant example, Jim Clark's flames of achievement have built a better world, and in so doing, have lighted the way for all of us. Jim also has been blessed with his wife Alice, his 3 children and 10 grandchildren. We wish this truly remarkable man all the love and happiness he deserves on this special occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, the dean of the House, John Dingell of the State of Michigan, for yielding. I also thank him for his extraordinary leadership for over half a century, his father in an extended period before that, a distinguished career of service to this country and focus on the strength and growth of this country, on the health of our people, and of the opportunities for our workers. John Dingell is a giant with whom we serve. John Dingell is a giant of a leader in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will remember one of the most solemn occasions in our Nation's history, the 66th anniversary of a ``date which will live in infamy,'' the day in which our Nation was attacked by an enemy that we now count as an ally. Let us hope, and I believe that many years from now, this day, December 6, 2007, will be remembered by future generations as the date upon which the New Direction 110th Congress took a historic step in moving our Nation toward real energy independence and casting off the bonds of dependence that threaten America's national, economic, and environmental security.

The bipartisan compromise legislation before us, the Energy Independence and Security Act, is nothing less, Mr. Speaker, than our generation's declaration of independence from foreign sources of petroleum. In particular, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dingell, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Gordon, and so many other Chairs of committees for the extraordinary work and effort that has made this day possible, which they put forward.

I am pleased that this legislation incorporates some of the ideas in the Progress Act, legislation that I have worked on with Chairman Dingell and many of our other committee Chairs. This legislation of course, like all legislation, is not perfect. However, when we pass this bill, we will be voting to strengthen our national security, lower energy costs, grow our economy, and create new jobs and, as well, begin to reduce global warming.

Among other things, this legislation takes groundbreaking steps, Mr. Speaker, to increase the efficiency of our vehicles, raising fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for new cars and trucks, the first increase in fuel economy standards since 1975. This important step would not have been possible without the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the leadership of John Dingell. I thank them both for their efforts.

This provision alone will save American families an estimated $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and reduce oil consumption by 1.1 million gallons per day in 2020. This single step will reduce

by one-half what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This legislation also makes a historic commitment to American-grown biofuels, including incentives to boost the production of biofuels and the number of flex fuel and other alternative vehicles, and establishing a tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, it requires that 15 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources; strengthens energy efficiency for a wide range of products, appliances, lighting and buildings, to reduce energy costs to consumers; and repeals tax breaks for oil companies and invests that money in clean renewable energy and American technologies.

The oil companies of course are making extraordinary profits to give them incentive to continue to provide us with the incentive that we need. But they do not need additional subsidies from this Congress. It is telling that this legislation is supported by a broad coalition of environmental, business, labor, and farm groups, as well as State and local officials.

For example, my friend and our former colleague, Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, stated: ``We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security.'' I want to thank Congressman McCurdy for his work on this bill, and I want to thank John Dingell, again, without whom this compromise could not have been reached. Paul Bledsoe of the National Commission on Energy Policy said: ``If it becomes law, this deal will mark the most important step toward improving U.S. oil security in a generation.''

Mr. Speaker, our national character was challenged by an unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor 66 years ago. We rose to the occasion then; and through our citizens' will, intelligence and ingenuity, we prevailed, and we were strengthened.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we face a daunting but far different challenge, a challenge that compels us to confront and conquer our Nation's addiction to petroleum. This legislation will help to do so. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not for partisan objectives or partisan reasons, but for the independence of our Nation, for the national security of our people, for the economy of our workers, and for the environment of our children, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very historic and important bill. Vote to cast off the chains of dependency that hold us back today which threaten our economic and environmental security. Vote, my colleagues, to put America on a path to achieve energy independence.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, let me once again say that no one in this body with whom I have ever served has focused on an issue so tenaciously, so effectively, so energetically as the Speaker of this House. When we pass this bill, it will be a testimony to her leadership and to her commitment.

I urge my colleagues, step with history for tomorrow and our children. Vote for this bill.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 3 p.m. in a pro forma session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and at 9 a.m. on Friday.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced before the close of business tomorrow.

Under a rule, we expect to consider a conference report on the Intelligence authorization bill and on the Department of Defense authorization bill and further action on appropriations and terrorism risk insurance. There may well be other legislation, if it comes from the Senate.

I will tell my friend, the first action we had on appropriation bills was of course when we passed all of our appropriation bills before we left for the August break. We now hope to have action on the remaining appropriation bills. We expect those to be included in an omnibus appropriation bill. Obviously, we have considered all of them. They essentially have been conferenced, notwithstanding the fact that the other body did not pass through the Senate five of their bills, as you know, but they did in fact pass them out of subcommittee. So we had products to conference with.

Both the House and the Senate have been working together to get them in a place where they could be considered, and it would be my expectation that we would consider an omnibus appropriation bill Tuesday night after we come back. I would hope to be able to pass such a bill on Tuesday. Again, that is being worked on between the House and the Senate. There have been discussions, as you know, with the administration as well trying to reach agreement so that we can ensure that the Government certainly doesn't shut down.

The CR expires on the 14th of next week. We would hope that we can pass an omnibus appropriation before that.

Mr. Obey is not here, and I think the answer to that question is ``yes,'' but you would know better than I. I am sure you would hear complaints if that were not the case, and perhaps you have heard complaints.

Frankly, as you know, and you and I have discussed this experience by the House before under both parties, because of the lateness of the Senate's actions, we are not in a position where we had all of the bills passed. Furthermore, there was not an inclination on some of the bills to go to the conference. Thirdly, we have been facing, as you know, a veto threat from the President on all of the bills except the Veterans MILCON bill and perhaps Homeland Security. Defense was signed, as you know. Notwithstanding the fact that the MILCON bill is very substantially above the President's request, he said he would sign that one, but bills like the Labor-Health bill were vetoed, so we have to consider that one again.

Mr. Obey has had a meeting with Mr. Nussle, as you know. It has been reported in the paper. That meeting was to try to figure out whether they could come to agreement. That meeting was not dispositive over that issue. Others have had meetings, including myself. We are hopeful to get to a place where everyone will not get everything that they want, but hopefully we will have agreement. I can't guarantee that.

The answer to your question, as I told you at the outset, I don't have specific answers to. My presumption is, however, the staffs have been talking to one another.

I anticipate at some point in time that will be the case.

Would the gentleman yield on that issue?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

As you know, I had a discussion with my good friend, and I know you know him well, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England. Obviously he is required, the Department of Defense is required under contract agreements that if there is not funding at a certain point in time, for them to send notice, not because they necessarily anticipate that there will be a necessity to have RIFs, but because under the agreement, when they contemplate running out of money, which would be sometime in February, 60 days before that, they have to send out a notice.

My expectation is that the Secretary will be sending us a letter. But I think the Secretary's expectation, and I think the letter may say this, his expectation is, pursuant to our conversations, that will not be necessary nor does anybody contemplate that being done. And I certainly want to say to any and all employees who are listening, that is not going to happen.

If the gentleman would yield again?

I thank the gentleman.

I am very hopeful and we are working very hard, as I know Mr. Obey is and others, and I know Senator Reid is as well, trying to reach agreement with the President.

Let me say respectfully that the discretionary spending that we have provided for is less a percentage of the GDP in terms of the spending of our national income than any of the bills that were passed from 2002 to 2006. We believe the differences are relatively small between the executive and the legislative branches.

We are prepared, as you have undoubtedly read and, as a matter of fact, you and I have discussed, to make some accommodations with the President, as is appropriate, to try to negotiate those.

What we are not prepared to do is simply have the President say, ``Look, this is what I have determined you can do.'' He can veto, we understand that, but we don't think that the proper place for the Congress of the United States under article I of the Constitution, which gives us the authority and puts in the Congress of the United States, the Senate and the House, the responsibility to make policy and appropriate funds for the priorities that we deem to be appropriate for our national security and general welfare, we don't think that it is appropriate to simply be given a number that we must meet. That is not what the Founding Fathers contemplated. As you well know, the budget is a relatively recent advent in terms of the President's authority over the budget.

Having said that, we want to work with the President. We think that the differences are very small. We think that they can be bridged hopefully relatively easily, which is why we hope by next week we can accomplish both of the issues you raise.

And the $196.4 billion that the President wants to spend in Baghdad and Kabul is probably more than the budgets of those States as well.

We agree.

I thank the gentleman for that question. We believe very, very strongly, as you know, that the alternative minimum tax was never, ever meant to apply to some of the people it may well be applied to this tax year. We have passed legislation to prevent that. In that legislation, as the gentleman knows, was also tax cuts for millions of people on property taxes, on other taxes, tax relief for teachers who buy things for their classroom, in effect, business expenses for making sure that our kids are learning.

The Senate, as you know, tried to bring that bill, not that bill but the chairman of the Finance Committee today made a unanimous consent to place the alternative minimum tax relief bill on the floor of the United States Senate without paying for it and it was objected to, as you know, as you probably know, by a Republican Member of the Senate because there was a refusal, apparently not an allowed amendment on the flat tax. We think that is unfortunate.

In answer to your question, we hope the AMT, in fact, is passed by the Senate. We hope that it is paid for. We have committed ourselves to paying for things that we spend money on so our children don't have to pay for them.

But we are going to be working very hard next week, I want to assure the gentleman, to make sure that the AMT is, in fact, addressed so that the 23 million people who are at risk of a tax increase and were never intended to be, as both sides agree, do not have that reality come April 15.

As you know, we passed a bill earlier this year, some months ago, which not only dealt with children's health insurance but it also dealt with reimbursement to doctors, medical providers who will be confronting on January 1 of this year a 10 percent decrease in reimbursement. Many of them will not continue to serve Medicare patients. We think that is a great problem.

Unfortunately, the Senate refused to go to conference on that bill. We did have meetings on our SCHIP bill. Our SCHIP bill, our children's health bill, was a part of the larger bill dealing with Medicare during rural health, dealing with ensuring that nobody was disadvantaged by any of the pay-fors in our bill, but the Senate would not go to conference on that. The meetings that resulted essentially resulted in taking the Senate bill on children's health insurance.

As you know, the Senate had indicated they were going to address the Medicare reimbursement issue which we had already addressed. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that yesterday they decided they either could not or were not going to do that. I talked to Mr. Rangel just a few minutes ago about that issue. We are going to be talking about that a little later today as to how we might address that. We think, again, that is a critical need for us to address. But I can't tell the gentleman exactly how that is going to be addressed because I don't know what ability we have to work with the Senate on this particular issue, but it needs to be addressed.

Of course my friend could help me solve that problem very easily. I just need 10 or 12 votes; and you are such an excellent whip, I'm sure you could get those votes for me and we could cover those 4 million children. But if you don't give me those 10 votes, or 15, that we need, we have no intention of leaving here without presenting for the floor, which we hope will pass the Senate as well, an extension of the existing law.

In addition to the extension of the existing law, I'm sure you've talked to Republican Governors and Democratic Governors. I've talked to Democratic Governors just yesterday. All of them are very concerned. Missouri, as you well know, has a shortfall. A number of other States have a shortfall, including my own, so there will be need to, if we're going to simply extend, to also fund the shortfall, or children will be off the program that are currently on the program.

In addition to that, as you well know, a very controversial regulation was issued by the administration capping or requiring a 90 percent coverage of those under 200 percent or you can't participate further in the program, can't expand the program. No State, as I understand it, meets that obligation, so that we're also working on that.

But the answer to your question is, we are certainly planning for, if we cannot get, we hope to be able to get, frankly, in the near future, in the next few days, hopefully, we've worked very, very hard in trying to meet some of the concerns that some of your Members have had.

As you know, you and I and your leader had an opportunity to meet. Mr. Boehner indicated he thought there was a significant number of Republicans that would like to vote for the bill. But we got, as you know, 45 Republicans who did vote for the bill.

We have had extraordinary meetings, and I think it's worth telling the body. Mr. Dingell and myself, as well as Mr. Baucus and Mr. Grassley and Mr. Hatch and Mr. Rockefeller, and from time to time, Mr. Barton and Mr. Deal and others, Mr. Whip, literally spent about 50 hours over the last

month in meetings trying to come to a place where we could reach agreement. Obviously, we're not there in terms of sufficient numbers to think that we can, or are ready to, introduce a new bill. That would be our preference, to introduce a bill that, after these long discussions, that would enjoy hopefully 60, 70, 80 Members, which is the number your leader used as possible to vote for such legislation and move that through the Senate and send it to the President. That would be our hope.

I thank the gentleman for that question. As the gentleman knows, and I've been involved in this business for a long time, four decades about, and whether it was in the State Senate, which had a constitutional ending date, or in the House of Representatives, it's very difficult to predict the last days of a session.

Now, I will tell you that the Speaker and I are working around the clock, almost literally, to ensure that we can adjourn this first session of the Congress of the United States on the 14th. We had hoped the 13th, but we're letting Members know that the 14th, that's only 4 days from now. We've just gone through some pretty heavy lifting in terms of the appropriation bills, in terms of the AMT, in terms of SCHIP, in terms of Iraq and in terms of other matters that we need to address before we leave here. But we think we can do it, and it is our intention to do it.

But, obviously, there are things that are pending that we cannot leave without doing, so that if we cannot get that done in that time frame, we will have to see where we go from there.

But I want to make it very, very clear to everybody that the Speaker, Senator Reid, and I have talked; and we are all very focused on the 14th being the day that we adjourn. The following week is the week before Christmas. We believe that individuals need to be home. I need to do shopping and decorating because all my family's coming to my house from some parts of the country, so I need to be home. And I'm sure every other Member shares that view.

So all I can tell my friend, and he knows this as well as I do, that the unpredictability of the next 4 legislative days is such that I can't make any guarantees, other than we are doing everything we can to get the business that we've just discussed done. We may have some very late nights on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; but we are hopeful that we will get this done and not have to ask Members to come back the week before Christmas.

Well, we've had some success this week. As you know, we think we've passed a historic energy bill. Not only that, as my friend knows, because he's from the State of our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, we were able to go to conference today, which has been somewhat contentious for a few days. We expect that conference to be on the floor early next week. So we are moving ahead.

But as we've discussed, there are some issues of difficulty that we haven't resolved that we need to resolve, and so we'll have to see whether or not we will be successful.

Madam Speaker, I stand today to recognize the career and contributions of a longtime friend and newspaperman in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, John Rouse, the editor of the Bowie Blade News.

For 36 years, the citizens of the City of Bowie, Prince George's County, and the State of Maryland have benefited from John's skill as an editor, insight as a writer, and dedication to the community that he has served for so long.

Many in Bowie recognize John by his long association with the Editor's View column he writes for the paper. Through this column and other writings, John has earned distinction for his thoughtful, objective style of journalism that has helped drive the Bowie Blade- News to significant acclaim.

After serving in the Air Force during the Vietnam era, John joined the Bowie News as editor in 1971 and became the editor and general manager of the new Bowie-Blade News in 1978 when the Bowie News merged with the Bowie Blade.

Madam Speaker, under John's leadership, the Bowie-Blade News has earned numerous recognitions, among them the Newspaper of the Year award in 1999 from the SEQ Chapter of the Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association. The paper has also won the Best in Show award for several investigative pieces over the years as well as awards for newspaper design.

John has earned several accolades of his own for his individual achievements in the news industry, including first place awards for his Editor's View column. He has been a longtime member of the Society of Professional Journalists (Sigma Delta Chi). John is also a lifetime member of both the Disabled American Veterans and the American Legion.

During John's 36 years in Bowie, he has remained resolute in his commitment to truth and fairness as guiding journalistic principles. John has served as an effective watchdog of the public interest in his community, and for that alone, he should be lauded.

Among John's most admirable qualities is his keen sense of humor. Although sometimes the target of that humor, I recognize that John is an equal opportunity satirist who adeptly uses the power of the writer's pen to make sound and insightful observations. And while John and I have sometimes fallen on different sides of a debate, we have grown to be friends over the years, and hold each other in high mutual respect and esteem.

After all, Madam Speaker, we have both witnessed the City of Bowie's evolution into the vibrant and diverse community that John is proud to call home, and I am proud to represent in Congress. All the while, John has maintained an innate ability to keep his finger firmly pressed on the pulse of the community, knowing better than most what makes Bowie such a great place to work and live.

As a resident of Bowie, John has served with countless community organizations and played a pivotal role in the formation of the Bowie YMCA. For his work in the community, John has been honored by a number of civic groups, including the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Committee of Bowie, the Bowie Civic Affairs Committee, and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Madam Speaker, John's career is significant not only in years and accomplishments, but also for the impact he has had in the City of Bowie. For three and a half decades, he has dedicated himself to working for the interests of his fellow Bowie residents and the good of the community. In recognition of his retirement as editor of the Bowie Blade-News and a public life filled with distinction, I ask my colleagues to join with me in offering him our

congratulations and wishing him the very best in his retirement.

I thank my friend for yielding. I thank him for his leadership as well. I thank Mr. Conyers for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. Smith for their participation.

This is a serious issue that confronts us. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the RESTORE Act, is nothing less than the fundamental reiteration of the most basic concepts of our Constitution, our constitutional form of government that we, indeed, are a Nation of laws and that our Founders deliberately designed our three branches of government to serve as a check and balance on each other.

One of my colleagues, my friend, I believe, from Arizona, stood and said it was not the job of judges to conduct intelligence. He was correct. It is not the job of judges to conduct intelligence. But it is the constitutional duty given by our Founding Fathers, who understood that King George too often abused his sovereign power and who said to all that they would have adopt this Constitution that we will protect you from the abuse of power of government, and we will do it by having it reviewed by independent judges, not by the legislature.

We can be told by judges that we are not acting constitutionally, and that is a protection for our people against congressional abuse of power. And the executive department can be told by judges you are abusing your constitutional power. No power, no protection was felt to be more necessary and important by our Founding Fathers than their right to personal privacy and a lack of intrusion by King George just because he wanted to do it. And they said King George had to have probable cause, in this case, the Government of the United States. So that's why they established the courts. And we, in our wisdom, in my view, established the FISA Court to do just that.

Every single one of us here recognizes that our highest duty is to protect the American people. Indeed, we must detect, disrupt, and eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killing of innocent people. We saw that tragically on 9/11. We also, each one of us, come to this well or stand at our seats and raise our hand and swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, to protect its laws and to honor the values and principles that are contained therein. That is our oath. That is what we do here this night, including the fourth amendment right that Americans are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's not an assertion on any individual or any government or even the

legislature. It was an assertion by our Founding Fathers that they had seen too often abuses by the executive agencies of government.

Our basic duties as Members of this Congress, protecting the American people and protecting the values that define us as Americans, are not mutually exclusive. We can protect our country and protect our Constitution. That is our duty.

And that is precisely what this historic act, introduced by Chairman Reyes and Chairman Conyers, has done. This legislation gives our intelligence community the tools it needs to listen in on those who seek to harm us while addressing concerns that the bill passed in August could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans. That is our concern. That is our focus.

Among other things, this legislation modernizes the technologically outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 by restoring a checks and balances rule for the FISA Court and addressing the intelligence gap asserted by the Director of National Intelligence.

We heard Director McConnell. We want to help Director McConnell. Let us be clear. This legislation does not require a warrant for listening in on suspected and known terrorists, period. An assertion to the contrary is not accurate. In fact, it clarifies that no court order is required for surveillance of conversations where both parties are foreign citizens. It does not extend constitutional rights to suspected or known terrorists, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor does it delay the collection of intelligence information.

Furthermore, it grants the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence authority, authority to apply to the FISA Court for a block order, not an individual order, not a discrete order, but a block order saying that you can pursue this gathering of information to protect America, but you cannot do it simply because you want to do it. You've got to do it consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof. You cannot conduct freelance surveillance without some authority of law.

The FISA Court can give a block order to conduct surveillance on large groups of foreign targets for up to a year, and that can be renewed, ensuring that only foreigners are targeted and Americans' rights are preserved. That was the whole reason in a bipartisan way we adopted FISA, to make sure that was the case.

Why do you fear a FISA Court reviewing that basic principle that was its intent at its adoption?

Finally, the legislation is silent on the issue of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that possibly violated privacy laws in turning over consumer information to the government. We don't make that judgment today. We need to review information to know what was done before we immunize conduct which we do not know. Simply stated, it would be grossly irresponsible for Congress to grant a blanket immunity for companies without even knowing whether their conduct was legal, appropriate, reasonable or not. Don't you think the American public, each one of our constituents, expects that of us?

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me quote The Washington Post, which stated in October, the measure produced by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees would alleviate the burden of obtaining individualized warrants for foreign targets while still maintaining a critical oversight for the FISA Court. In other words, we are relieving the administration from the burden of discrete approval. But we are providing for the protections that Americans expect under our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, we must give our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States and the intelligence community the resources, the authority, and flexibility that is necessary to protect our people and defend our Nation. I believe each of us in this Congress support that objective. But we must also honor the values and principles that make us Americans. This legislation allows us to do both.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, facilitate the interception of information and terrorist communication dangerous to our people and our country. And at the same time, redeem that oath of protecting and defending our Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I made this announcement some 10 days ago or a week ago, and we frankly didn't follow it very well, but I want to take another try.

On both sides of the aisle, you have correctly expressed concern about how long our votes are taking. There are times when votes take a longer time, we have Members down at the White House, we are just going to finish a committee markup, they are voting, or something like that. We understand that.

Madam Speaker, I would like everybody to hear this, because you are going to be angry with me. You are going to be angry with me today.

There were some 140 votes cast by the time the time ran out on this vote. That meant there were some 280 people who had not voted after 15 minutes. This vote took 25 minutes, give or take. Both sides of the aisle and the committee chairmen who are in a markup and it takes so long to get back to the markup, and we have witnesses standing there, both sides had this problem.

So I am asking you for your cooperation. Look at the clock, and when the clock hits 5 minutes left, come over here. Don't look at how many Members have not voted and think to yourself because there are so many Members that haven't voted, we're going to call the roll.

I want to say to my side, I am not going to, frankly, want to lose votes. You don't want to lose votes. They didn't want to lose votes when they were in charge. I didn't blame them. Either side. But don't take the position that they will wait for as long as they need to wait, because that is inconsiderate to every Member who comes here in a timely fashion and then has to wait because somebody else doesn't.

Now, I will tell you this: I am an offender. I am not pointing a finger. If I am pointing a finger at you, I'm pointing four fingers at me. I have in the last week, so I could get up here and pontificate, tried to make sure that I got here on time. But I haven't been getting here on time. I have done the same thing as you. That's why I know you do it. Look at that.

So I am asking all of us to try to work together so that when the bell is rung and the roll is called, you are here on time. We will keep these votes in the vicinity of 17 minutes, and some of you are going to miss votes.

Let me clarify so you understand. The Speaker's position articulated at the beginning of the session, if you are in the well with a card in your hand, you will be allowed to vote. But if somebody yells in the back of the room

``one more,'' if somebody is walking through the door, I do not guarantee you that you will be able to vote. We are going to call the vote.

Thank you very much.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Reclaiming my time, ladies and gentlemen, if the elevators are slow, you leave with 10 minutes remaining on the vote. You be here.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore