Michael Arcuri

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I would just like to say we are hearing about everything except this energy bill. And, Mr. Speaker, I would point out this is a good bill, and so the people on the other side of the aisle want to talk about everything but this rule and this bill. I rise today in strong support of this rule and this bill, H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, which will not only bring this country into a new alternative energy future, but strengthen our economy, create jobs, and boost small businesses in the very towns and rural communities where we need it most. During these uncertain economic times, it is absolutely critical that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term development for tomorrow. The best way to encourage growth and development of new technology is to let businesses invest their own money in ways that expand our economic horizons. Tax credits for alternative energy production have the power to truly jump-start our economy and create good-paying, highly skilled jobs that can't be sent overseas. In my upstate New York district, our location with natural resources and first-class scientific and technological community makes us perfectly poised to seize the opportunity to create a new green economy, complete with green jobs. I recently had the opportunity to see firsthand what investments in alternative energy production can do. I attended a groundbreaking at Mascoma's $30 million cellulosic ethanol facility in Rome, New York, and went to the grand opening of the Schuyler Wood Pellet plant in Herkimer County, which will create 18 full-time green jobs on-site, enough wood pellets to heat 33,000 homes, and provide a $10.5 million investment in upstate New York's future. That is the kind of future and the kind of bill we are here to support today. This is why I am especially glad to support the over- $8 billion in long-term renewable energy tax incentives included in the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, tax incentives that will help companies like Mascoma and Schuyler Wood Pellet continue to grow and spur additional economic activity. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, as a recipient of the nastiest attack ad in the last election cycle, I was sad to see this past weekend that it's already started. Yes, the Swift Boat crews were out and at it again, this time trying to convince the American people that because some Members of Congress felt it was better for our security to extend the FISA bill for 21 days rather than let it expire, that somehow they don't care about America's security. Well, that's not only untrue, it's downright insulting. And the rationale: We should just trust the President's judgment on this matter and rubber-stamp his decisions. This is the same President who assured us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, I want the cowards who crafted these intentionally deceiving messages to know that I was not sent to Congress to be a rubber stamp for this President or anyone else. I will continue to voice my opposition to the President whenever it is necessary to ensure the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are protected.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, the Chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Chairman, today is not about a FISA debate. Actually, it's not even about whether or not Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten have a right to claim an executive privilege. What it is about is does a person in this country have to follow the laws of the United States, follow the rule of law, follow the Constitution and abide by a legally administered subpoena. And I guess the best way to talk about that is to draw a comparison. Under the Constitution, a person has an absolute right to claim their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. So, if a person is subpoenaed to testify in a criminal matter, they can't call the judge up and say, ``Judge, I think I might have a fifth amendment problem here. I'm not going to show up.'' The judge will tell them they have to be in court and they have to assert their fifth amendment right after they are asked a question. The same thing applies here. They have to appear before Congress and at least assert that right before they can claim some kind of privilege; otherwise, the entire system falls apart. Oh, today is a very important day for Congress. We are taking up a very, very important measure, and that is is the Constitution going to be followed and are we going to do our constitutional job.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, the economic stimulus package that President Bush will sign into law today is a bipartisan victory for the American people. This broad-based stimulus package will provide tax relief of up to $600 per individual and $1,200 per married couple, plus an additional $300 per child. Recovery rebate checks could be sent out to 130 million Americans as early as May. The stimulus package includes unprecedented tax relief for working families. The measure provides $32 billion in tax relief for 35 million families who work but make too little to pay income taxes, families who otherwise would not have been included in the recovery package. This is a critically important provision in the stimulus package because economists say that the tax rebates that include low- and moderate- income families are 24 percent more effective as stimulus than rebates that leave these families out. Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that this stimulus package will help jump-start our economy so more Americans can live the American Dream.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. ARCURI. I thank my colleague from Washington for his comments. Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything since the terrorist attacks of September 11, it is that the balance between security and civil liberties is not only difficult, it's absolutely critical. Providing this 3-week extension will do nothing to block or hinder the efforts of our intelligence community. Quite the contrary, it enhances their ability to do their jobs effectively and ensures the integrity of their efforts because it gives us time to get these reforms right. I want to remind my colleagues that voting to defeat the previous question is a vote to deny the administration the ability to utilize its existing authority under law to assess threats, gather intelligence and protect the freedom and security of every American. Twenty-one days isn't a long time. And based on the sensitivity and public interest in this issue, we owe that to the American people and the framers of the Constitution to strike a fair balance that allows us to protect the civil liberties of Americans and to provide the administration the tools and resources to protect our Nation from another terrorist attack. Twenty-one days is a fair request. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir.

Mr. ARCURI. I have no further speakers.

Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend and colleague from New York for his statements. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the speakers on the other side continue to try to couch this argument in a way and frame it in such a way that makes it appear that people on our side, the Democrats, don't care about the security of this country in the way that they do. And it's obvious that nothing could be further from the truth. Simply by extending the FISA bill for 21 days to ensure that we have all the information that is out there and all the information that is available and that we have an opportunity to go through it in a thoughtful way doesn't mean that we have less concern for security but, rather, an equal amount of concern for security and also for the liberty of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, you know, obviously raises a good point. As a former FBI agent, he was very concerned, he is very concerned, and he continues to be very concerned with doing the right thing, getting the people who are breaking the laws, hurting our children and who are putting our citizens in jeopardy. But no one in this Chamber has the market cornered on that. That is something that I think universally throughout this Chamber there is a strong desire to fulfill. That is why we are here. We are here to protect and defend our citizens and to protect and defend our Constitution, and that is all we are asking for today: 21 days to ensure that we are able to look over the recommendations, to look over the material that has recently been forwarded to us by this administration to ensure that we are not only protecting and securing this country, but rather that we are also doing it in a way that protects our liberty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague that the only dangerous political game that is being played here is the attempt to cast this as a political game. There is no such attempt being made by anyone in the Democratic Party. The only attempt we are making is to give us time to go through the material that has only recently been given to us with the simple objective of ensuring that we get a bill which keeps our country safe and guarantees the liberty of our people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be asking us to rely upon assurances given to us by this administration, this same administration that has told us about weapons of mass destruction, the same administration that told us that Iran was building a nuclear bomb. And then she asks why we are skeptical about taking the word of the administration. As my colleague knows, the House passed the RESTORE Act last November. It was not until last night that the Senate passed a bill reauthorizing and reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill is significantly different than the one we passed in November. As is the case when the House and the Senate have differing bills, it is appropriate for the two to meet and reconcile their differences. That is exactly what we intend to do in a bipartisan and bicameral way. However, as my colleagues also know, the President's preferred surveillance law is set to expire on Saturday. The underlying bill will extend that law for 3 weeks and give the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees time to work toward a conference agreement. Additionally, it will also give our Members, Republican and Democrat, time to review reams of highly classified materials which were only provided to us by the White House in recent days, despite requests dating back all the way to May, 8 months ago. These materials are absolutely critical as the House considers the request which has been made by the White House to grant what amounts to a blanket transactional immunity to telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance plan without any explanation of what that immunity is for. While the President has been quick to call on Congress to act, it is he who has continued to ignore countless congressional requests for information about the actions of his administration. As a former State attorney, I know firsthand that not even a first- year prosecutor would even entertain the idea of granting immunity without knowing what that immunity is for and who that immunity is being granted to. From his seat, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee noted last night in Rules that he cannot recall a time in his 45 years in the House when an administration has asked Congress to provide immunity to anyone or anything without telling us why. The House is not opposed to granting such immunity, but if we are going to act, then we need to know why. Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of passing long-term FISA reform, but it will take time because there are very real differences between the positions of the majority Members of this body and the Senate and the White House. Those who come to the floor today to delay this extension and engage in a manufactured obstructionism, which has become so symbolic of the congressional Republicans, are doing a great disservice to this Nation. We will overcome this obstructionism, and we will use the next 3 weeks to reconcile our differences and come to the American people with a bill that protects our homeland without sacrificing our civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion on this issue. Certainly it is the type of issue that elicits real passion from people. But I think we as a body need to be sure that the steps that we take are deliberative and thoughtful. Certainly reacting to an issue such as this in a passionate way may deprive us of taking the necessary steps that we need to ensure that the liberty of our citizens is kept intact. Again, I would just point out that this bill is asking for an additional 21 days within which Congress can continue to review the documents that we have asked for that we have only recently received to make a determination, again, a deliberative determination based upon facts and reasons and not on passion. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Washington for his insightful history on the FISA bill. I would submit that I agree with him that the FISA bill is necessary for the security of America. No one questions that. No one on our side of the aisle questions that. The question that we do have is does the Senate bill actually take away some of the liberty that is so necessary to the American people. All we are asking for is an extension of 21 days. When you think about it in the grand scheme of things, 21 days to make a determination whether or not this bill continues to give the American people the liberty that they have had for over 200 years, that is not a lot to ask for. I would much rather have 21 days, keep the bill in effect but extend it for 21 days, knowing full well that the end product is something that not only ensures our security but guarantees our liberty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 976 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 976 provides for further consideration of H.R. 5349, which extends the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, 7 years into his Presidency, President Bush is finally urging reform of the earmark process. He is a little late. Congressional Democrats have already begun reforming the earmark process. We realized reform was necessary after the number of earmarks in appropriations bills skyrocketed under the Republicans. You didn't hear the President complaining then. In fact, he signed every appropriations bill that came to his desk. Democrats, in stark contrast, have led the way in bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process. We instituted a 1-year moratorium on earmarks in 2007 until a reformed process could be put into place. We also adopted rules that provided for unprecedented transparency in earmarks and then significantly reduced the number of earmarks last year. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats are pleased to hear that the President is interested in reforming the earmark process. The Bush White House requests and receives funding for hundreds of earmarks each year, and we look forward to working with the President to both limit and bring increased transparency to the Presidential and congressional earmarks.