Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his kind and generous remarks. I especially thank him for his tremendous leadership, because under his leadership we are able today to vote on something that is relevant to the lives of the American people. I commend Leader Boehner for his leadership as well. It has been a privilege to work in a bipartisan way to help relieve the pain of the American people. For a long time now, homemakers, homeowners, and hard workers across America have known that there is a problem in our economy. They've had a hard time making ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, with rising costs for gasoline, for groceries, for health care, you name it. American families felt this pain early on, and they knew that our economy was facing perhaps a serious downturn, but a downturn nonetheless. On December 7, actually, I remember because my seventh grandbaby was born that day, Thomas Vincent, on December 7 we had a meeting, a bipartisan meeting with leaders from the business community, economists, leaders of industry, of labor, the academic community, people representing workers in the diversity of our country, and we talked about what we could do to head off a serious downturn in our economy. We knew from that meeting that it would have to be timely, that we would need to act quickly; that it would have to be targeted, that it would put money in the pockets of hardworking Americans who would immediately spend the money to meet their needs, inject demand into the economy to help create jobs; and it had to be temporary. The tax incentives in the package would have to be such that they would have to be acted upon in this calendar year so that the full impact could be felt for job creation and stimulus to the economy. Previous stimulus packages have not had that. They had a 2-year period of time in which the incentives would work, and therefore they lost impact. Previous stimulus packages did not have a cap on who received the rebate, or the tax cut as Mr. Bachus calls it. And so, therefore, a lot of money went into the hands of people who never really spent it and injected it back into the economy. But this is timely. We're acting very quickly, not hastily, but quickly and firmly in a disciplined way on a package that has as its one criterion for anything that's in the package, is it stimulus, is it stimulus, and does it meet the test of enabling us to move in a timely fashion, targeted and temporary. I was pleased that, working with my colleague, Mr. Boehner, and with the administration under the leadership of Secretary Paulson, that we were able to come to terms on how we would proceed. We could only do that because of the extraordinary respect in which Mr. Rangel is held, and Mr. McCrery, and them working cooperatively as they have for a while. We could only include in the package those features that related to the subprime crisis because of the extraordinary reputation of the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, understanding the terms under which we wanted to proceed, and respecting his expertise in those areas and those of Mr. Bachus as well. So, this has been bipartisan in terms of committee, in terms of working together over time, and bipartisan in terms of the leadership working together a short time frame, benefiting from the work that had gone before us. It's important in this package to have a level of discipline, because one of the features that the economists, business leaders, labor leaders, et cetera, had told us in the course of all these discussions is you don't want to do anything in a stimulus package that will hinder your ability to act in a recovery. So, it's important that this bill not get overloaded. I have a full agenda of things I would like to have in the package, but we have to contain the price, and in doing so, you have to establish your priorities. And the priority we had was to put $28 billion in the hands of 35 million families who had never received a rebate or a child tax credit before, and to do it quickly. That was our priority. Because if you do, to do that, again, is true stimulus. All the other things, while worthy and important, again, we made a decision, because that's where we could find our common ground. But if we heap too much on top of that package, it will then take us deeply into debt. And PAYGO is important to us. And while in recession the PAYGO law allows for us to take certain initiatives, you don't want to abuse that by again adding to the deficit for items in the package that are not strictly timely, temporary, targeted or stimulus. So, I think we have a good product here. It's all a compromise. It's all about decisions and priorities that have to be established. But it also speaks to the fact that we really do, hopefully, we need to work in a bipartisan way, to have a very aggressive initiative for job creation in our country. And we've already laid the framework for that in a bipartisan way. We've had overwhelming votes in this Congress, for example, on SCHIP, expanding health care to many more children in America. Health care needs health-trained professionals at every aspect of the delivery of health care. So, it creates good-paying jobs in America when you expand health care accessibility to Americans. Education, innovation, all of those are about keeping us competitive, keeping us number one; again, creating good-paying jobs in America so that we prevail in the global marketplace. And we talk about infrastructure, that we must have a package for rebuilding our roads, our highways, mass transit, taking initiatives for new projects as well, creating good-paying jobs in America. And global warming. We, as a generation and as a Congress, will be judged by posterity as to how we deal with the issue of a global climate crisis. This affords for us a whole new world of job opportunity where we're all on the ground floor, largely, where we go into urban America and our inner cities or we go into rural America and create good-paying green jobs that are new. It's about being entrepreneurial about this, to thinking in new and different ways about how our decisions have to be seen in the light of ``do they create good-paying jobs in America.'' So, again, while we stand ready to present a stimulus, if need be, we want to, in the long term, not that long term but longer term than a stimulus, create jobs to avoid such a downturn and, in any event, raise the living standard of the American people. And so, whether it's about this rebate and what it means to these hardworking Americans who are facing rising costs and need help to live paycheck to paycheck, and I'm telling you, that's not just the working poor, that is the middle class in America. This is a middle-class tax rebate bill. We call it the Recovery, Rebate and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act. It targets the middle class and those who aspire to it. And for that same middle class, we must have an ongoing aggressive initiative for job creation so that across the board America's families have the confidence that they need. Because in a downturn, what you need is confidence. You need consumer confidence. You need confidence in the markets. And as Mr. Rangel always tells me, a message of confidence is given to the American people when Members of Congress can work with the administration in a bipartisan way to put the American people first. So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Mr. Frank, Mr. Rangel, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Bachus, and to my colleagues, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Velazquez, and Charlie Rangel, again, for all their leadership in terms of the territories, which is a very important part of this legislation. I think it's a good day for us here. And let's hope that the Senate will take its lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest. A staff delegation from the U.S. Congress will be selected to visit Germany from May 23 to June 1 of this year. During this 10 day exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag/Bundesrat members, Bundestag and Bundesrat party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies. Participants also will be hosted by a Bundestag member during a district visit. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for 10 days July 12-20. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Members of Congress. The U.S. delegation is expected to facilitate these meetings. The Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and the United States, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern to the United States and Germany such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. This year's delegation should be familiar with transatlantic relations within the context of recent world events. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag/Bundesrat staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two staffers in their Member's district in July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and past participants of the exchange. Members of the House and Senate who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, HB-28, the Capitol, by 5 p.m. on Friday, March 14, 2008.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on behalf of insuring America's children and also commend the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his leadership on this important subject. Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge your exceptional presiding over this debate. You have presided over most of the debate for SCHIP, if not all. I think you are approaching, depending on what happens in the course of this debate, 100 hours of presiding in a very dignified fashion, and I want to acknowledge that because of the importance of this issue. Thank you, Madam Speaker. All year we have been talking about the subject of how we make America healthier, how we bring many more children who are eligible to be enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We've had the debates. We've had the outside advocacy of the March of Dimes, of Easter Seals, of the AMA, of the AARP, of Families USA, the YWCA, of the Catholic Hospital Association. Almost any organization that you can name that has anything to do with the health of the American people has endorsed the legislation that we have before us. That is important to the children, to their families, to their communities, to the economic stability of their States which have to provide health insurance for these children. In the last few days, we have all been working together in a bipartisan way to come up with a stimulus package. The recognition that we need a stimulus package points to the need further for this SCHIP legislation to become law. Let's make our working in a bipartisan way on the stimulus package a model for how we approach other issues as well. This SCHIP package has had strong bipartisan support from the start, in the House and in the Senate. In fact, the Senate has a veto-proof majority. Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley have been major architects of this legislation, two very distinguished Republican leaders in the United States Senate. The issue comes down to what is happening in America's households today. Unemployment is up; housing starts are down. The price of gasoline and food and health care is up; the stock market is down. So the indicators, some that are felt very closely and intimately by America's families and some that are felt by our economy, all point to the need for us to take a new direction. And that new direction says what can we do that is fiscally sound, that meets the needs of the children, that has bipartisan support, and, again, strengthens our country by improving the health of our people? One of the things that we can do is, again, take the lead, and many children who have come here to advocate on behalf of all children in our country, whether it was through the March of Dimes or Easter Seals or any other organizations, and that is to vote to override the President's veto. Let's remove all doubt in anyone's mind that this Congress of the United States understands our responsibility to children, understands our responsibility to the future. We've had the debate. We know the facts. We know the figures. It's just a decision that people have to make about what is inside of them about what their priorities are. And I hope the message that would lead this Congress is the message that we care about children and we care enough about them that we will vote to override this veto. I thank the gentlemen again for their leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to express our sympathy and sadness and recognize the tremendous contribution of Benazir Bhutto to the cause of democracy. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the full committee; Mr. Lantos and Mr. Pence for their giving this opportunity to us as well and for their strong words and support of democracy in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto about 15 years ago came to this Chamber of Congress, one of the first women ever to address a joint session of Congress. Only in her thirties, I believe, at the time, she inspired us, she filled us with hope, and the confidence which she projected gave us the confidence that democracy could come to Pakistan. That was a while ago, and much has transpired since then. She has been in and out and in again as Prime Minister. And, as you know, when she returned to Pakistan, it was to participate in an election to take Pakistan back down the path to democracy. Her return was courageous. Mr. Pence mentioned the word courageous. It was courageous for many reasons. It is important to note that her father and two of her brothers had been assassinated. They were victims of political violence. And, of course, their family was dealt another blow as were the people of Pakistan with the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto. She possessed a remarkable optimism about the future, a belief in the power of dialogue, and a strong, strong commitment to democracy. She was an advocate for reconciliation between Islamic and non-Islamic societies, and outlined how that goal could be achieved. She not only had a vision, she had a plan on how it would be done. The strength of her message of hope has underscored how much we lost in her tragic death. In the days and the weeks that have followed Benazir Bhutto's death, there has been little good news from Pakistan. The Musharraf government continues to deny the Pakistani people a full accounting of the assassination and the events that followed. There must be a strong international investigation of this despicable crime. I acknowledge and recognize that the government has accepted assistance from Scotland Yard and the government of Great Britain. But the government has delayed scheduled parliamentary elections while continuing to jail democratic activists, suppress journalists, and shut out international monitors. The Bush administration must continue to press the Pakistani government to ensure that the coming election is free and fair. I think it is important to note, my colleagues and Madam Speaker, that the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which were passed by this body and were signed into law last year, condition U.S. assistance to Pakistan on the cooperation of the Pakistani Government with global efforts against terrorism. Since 2001, Pakistan has received nearly $10 billion in U.S. assistance. The Bush administration has repeatedly certified that our assistance would facilitate Pakistan's transition to democracy. We clearly have not seen enough progress in this area. Troubling questions have been raised about our assistance to Pakistan, that it has not been properly monitored and that the Pakistani Government may be using it for purposes other than those intended. Last year, under the leadership of Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Ranking Member Frank Wolf of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, under their leadership, our legislation shifted economic assistance for Pakistan from going directly to the Musharraf government to going directly to the Pakistani people on the ground. Indeed, this was a step forward and a recognition of the concerns that we had about how that aid was being used in Pakistan. I believe the best way for the United States to honor the legacy of Benazir Bhutto is to renew our engagement directly with the people of Pakistan. We urge the Musharraf government to implement democratic reforms by restoring the Pakistani constitution, ensuring freedom of expression and assembly, guaranteeing free and fair democratic elections, and restoring an independent judiciary. The opportunity that Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Pence have given us today to give an overwhelming vote in support of this resolution can tell the world that again we have gone on record in support of the democratic hopes of the Pakistani people and to pay tribute to the legacy of Benazir Bhutto. I know I speak for all Members when I express my condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto, and also to all of the others who lost loved ones in this tragic incidence of violence and assassination in Pakistan.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for his kind words and for his tremendous leadership. Because of his leadership and that of 10 other Members, Chairs of our committees of jurisdiction, working in a bipartisan way, we are able to bring earth-shattering change in terms of energy policy to the floor of the House. Here we are today. Here we are today to pass a bill that passed in the Senate 88-6; 88-6, very strong bipartisan support for this legislation. Today in the House, we have the opportunity to give that same kind of validation and legitimacy to a new direction in energy security for America. It is about our national security. Admiral McGinn, when he spoke recently, said that our dependence on foreign oil presents a clear and present danger to our country. It is a matter of our national economy. Congresswoman Velazquez, Chair of the Small Business Committee, and Congressman George Miller, with the Green Jobs Initiatives, can show a new way to build a new economy involving many more people and the new technologies that will be unleashed because of this legislation. It's about protecting our environment. Congressman Rahall, Chairman Rahall and his Natural Resources Committee provided great leadership, as did the Chair of the Government Reform Committee, Mr. Waxman, who has long been a supporter of energy security and energy independence. The list goes on: Mr. Oberstar, the greening of the Capitol and the Federal buildings across the country and what that will save, and many more initiatives that he has presented. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee provided the way to pay for it. That was rejected in the Senate, but we will revisit that issue in a manner that I think will receive strong bipartisan support. The chairman of our select committee, Mr. Markey, did an excellent job in keeping this issue alive, as he has worked on it for many, many years. What other Chairs? I'm looking around the room at our Chairs. I'll talk about them as we go along. Mr. Bart Gordon, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, is really in the forefront. So much of this bill comes out of his committee. Mr. Speaker, the work that was done by the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, is breaking ground. It's groundbreaking in terms of what it will do in savings to the consumer, what it is doing in terms of protecting the environment, and, again, what it is doing to provide a new direction. And it does so in a way that breaks ground but does not leave it broken. It takes us to a new place, and I thank him for that leadership. It's a tremendous addition to this legislation. And the United States Senate, two of their major provisions, renewable fuel portfolio, and the CAFE, were leadership issues, and I'm glad that we were able to work out those, reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate, again with the leadership of Mr. Dingell. I think of us as being in a place where we're looking at the horizon, whether we're on a ship, or wherever we are, looking at a horizon. And this legislation takes us closer to that horizon. But as with all horizons, they keep getting farther away. But they lead us and reaching for it takes us to a whole new world. And that's what this legislation does. My colleagues in this Chamber, our guests. Am I allowed to address them, Mr. Speaker? You are present at a moment of change, of real change, of rejecting the past, respecting the values of the past, but rejecting the insistence that we stay in the past and go into the future. This is about a choice between yesterday and tomorrow. And while I would have liked to have had the full package that passed here with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, I salute this bill for what it does do and respect it for that, rather than judge it for what it does not, because we have plenty of time, interest, knowledge, know-how and bipartisanship to move forward to make even more change. It's, as I said, a national security issue. It's an economic issue, an environmental issue and therefore a health issue. It is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue. It's a moral issue, and that's why we worked closely with the evangelical and faith-based communities, with scientists and faith-based, with business and environmentalists, with our friends in labor who support this legislation, to preserve God's beautiful legacy to us. It is His gift to us, and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it. We have to think about our consumers every single day. That's who we represent. They are our bosses, and their well-being is our mission, to protect their well-being. This legislation will save the average driver who goes up to the pump and has the shock that consumers are having, this legislation alone will save the average driver between $700 and $1,000 per year. It adds up to $22 billion in net annual consumer savings in the year 2020. In order to reduce the price at the pump, the increasing of the fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon is historic. It's the first time in 32 years that this has happened. So whether we're thinking as consumers and very personally about what this means in the lives of our constituents as they see their energy costs go up at the pump or in heating their homes at this Christmas season, or we're thinking of our national defense and our national economy, this is as personal as each and every one of our consumers. It is as global as the planet, and the opportunity provided to take us to a new horizon, to see a new world, a new era of possibility is here with us today. I hope, as a Christmas present to our constituents and, especially to the children, because it's about their future, that we would have very, very strong bipartisan support for this legislation. In the Senate, as I said, 88-6, a beautiful vote. I hope that we can replicate that in the House. In any event, this great opportunity for us would not have been possible without the leadership of you, Mr. Chairman, so many of our chairmen, including the gentleman in the Chair, working from the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, and so many others of us. As I salute our chairmen for the intellect, the institutional memory, the legislative know-how that they brought to this process, I also want to give a special thank you to our freshman class. They came to this Congress to make change. They know how essential protecting our planet is. They know the concerns of their constituents. They're fresh out of the trenches, dealing with them. And without that freshman class, if I may call them freshmen, we would not have had the success that we have had today. So this has been a collaboration on both sides of the aisle, from our most senior Members to our newest Members of Congress, to invigorate us, to encourage us to make the change that we're making today. I'm absolutely delighted about it. I can't wait until we join with the President of the United States when he signs this legislation into law and takes a step forward into the future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank very much my colleague and thank you for calling us together so that we can express our sympathy to the family of Julia Carson, to her constituents whom she loved and worked so hard for, and to our colleagues from Indiana; Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Hill and Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Ellsworth, who are here, this great distinguished delegation from Indiana with the crown jewel, Julia Carson, as one of the senior members of the delegation. Thank you so much. I know you are among those who were the last, certainly from Congress, to visit with Congresswoman Carson and conveyed back to us her usual good cheer and dignity and demeanor, and that is how she was. And so that it's very sad to convey to her grandson Andre Carson on behalf of all of the Members of the House of Representatives the deep sadness that we have over their suffering. Members have talked about her in Congress and the kind of person that she was, and I remember visiting her on a number of occasions in Indianapolis, and what was a joy to behold was the esteem in which she was held by all of the people there, whether we were walking down the street or talking to police officers there. Wherever it was we went to events that she had, relating to health care, relating to the issues that concerned America's working families, people just worshipped Julia Carson. I never saw anything like it. I never saw anything like it. She came to Congress, as has been mentioned, after decades of distinguished service to the State of Indiana, and Members have talked about her, the positions that she has held. During her time in the House, she was a very powerful advocate for the people of Indianapolis and for working families across the Nation. As the Indianapolis Star editorial board wrote, ``The city's history- making congresswoman never forgot her roots.'' I was listening as Members talked about the role that she had played most recently, the congresswoman from California talking about the role she played in getting the House to vote for a Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks. I talked about how it was to watch Julia in Indianapolis and just how people responded to her as she was walking down the street, and I now talk about how it was the day that she got this idea and started the ball rolling on this and then the day that Rosa Parks came to the Congress. It was a thrilling, historic day for all of us, the bond between the two of them, the reverence in which we all held Rosa Parks, and the appreciation that she had for the work that Julia Carson had done to make that day possible, not only for Rosa Parks but for the country. She's a star. Julia was a star. It's a fitting cause for her, as Julia and Rosa Parks shared a quiet determination, a fierce sense of purpose and a total commitment to an ideal of equality which is our Nation's heritage and our Nation's hope. Sadly, as we all know, in recent months, Julia Carson faced illness, but she did so with her characteristic courage and dignity. When she was here, she was here, and when she wasn't here, she was directing us from home. You were very fortunate, and I'm not usually jealous, but I'm jealous of the fact that you had an opportunity to see her. We had all hoped, of course, that we would see her once again here on the floor of the House. I know that we're reassured that Julia is now at peace. This lovely, lovely woman, with an incredible sense of humor, she didn't miss anything that was going on on the floor. She would sit there quietly and then make the most incisive and insightful comments about the proceedings. We're all sad to lose her as a congresswoman, of course, for our country. We're deeply saddened to lose her as a friend, and I hope it is a comfort to Andre Carson and to her family and to her constituents that so many people throughout our country, and certainly in this Congress, share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time. I thank again my colleague for affording us the opportunity to express our admiration for this great lady, Julia Carson.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Hoyer for his leadership on this very important legislation. He has worked very hard to try to achieve a level of bipartisanship on this legislation that could override the President's veto. In the United States Senate, there is a substantial bipartisan majority large enough to override the President's veto. I hope that we could achieve that in this House. We are not going to take up that vote tonight, as has been indicated by Mr. Hoyer. That debate and that vote will take place on January 23. It is just very interesting to hear the reasons why the President of the United States said veto to the children of America. Veto in Latin: I forbid. I forbid the children of America, the children of working families who play by the rules and want the best for their children, who are struggling to make ends meet and who need health care and the health care that keeps them in the workforce and off of welfare and off of Medicaid. Madam Speaker, it is particularly interesting to hear in this debate on the omnibus bill where there is talk of hundreds of billions of dollars more for the war in Iraq. For 40 days in Iraq, we can insure 10 million children in America; 40 days in Iraq, 10 million children in America. This is not an issue. This is a value. This is an ethic of the American people. The Democrats and Republicans, people of no party affiliation, everybody cares about the children of America. Over 80 percent of the American people support the SCHIP expansion that we want to do to double the number of children. So when the President says we have not met his objections, he is moving the goal post. In his first veto message, he said he is concerned about the fact that people making $80,000 would be eligible for SCHIP. Not so. The only way they could be eligible is if the President of the United States himself gave them a waiver. The President has given waivers to families making 300 percent of poverty. The President himself has given that waiver. And now he is complaining about that level of income for families, hardworking families to receive SCHIP. The President said he is concerned that there are still adults in the program. The Democratic response, bipartisan, strong, with 45 Republican votes, said that the adults would be phased out. The reason some of them are in there in the first place is that in order to get the children into the program, Governors had thought that it would be important to bring families into the program, and the President of the United States, President Bush's policy allowed that to happen. So he is turning his back on his own policy. He is turning his back on these children by saying their families should be off of SCHIP. So when the President says he is opposed to the bill because it raises taxes, then we get to the heart of the matter. This bill is paid by an increase in the cigarette tax, and this is really why the President is vetoing the bill. The President is saying that rather than raise the cigarette tax, he would prefer to prevent an additional 5 million children in our country from getting access to quality health care. The President has also said in other comments about this legislation, everyone in America has access to health care; they can just go to the emergency room. That was probably one of the most ill-informed, with stiff competition for that honor, but nonetheless probably one of the most ill-informed statements that could ever be made by anyone dealing with public policy and access to health care. So again, I think all the Members of Congress who voted for this in a very strong bipartisan way in the House and the Senate can take great pride in setting a high watermark for what this Congress should be doing for children of working families in America. I salute Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stark for their exceptional leadership. I also salute Mr. LaHood for what he tried to do to bring bipartisanship to all of this. I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch for their courageous leadership in the Senate, in leading the way to a veto-proof majority of Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. Whether you are talking about Easter Seals or the March of Dimes, the Association of Catholic Hospitals, AARP, AMA to YWCA, to everything alphabetically in between, everyone supports SCHIP except the President of the United States and those in this body who will side with him on this vote. What a sad day. What a sad day that the President would say, rather than insuring 5 million children, I don't want to raise the cigarette tax. What a sad day when we would spend in 40 days in Iraq what it takes to insure 10 million children in America for 1 year. But we are not going to let this veto stand. We will act upon it and we will continue to fight the fight until 10 million children at a minimum in America have access to quality health care under the SCHIP program. It is the wish of the Governors.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Neal, chairman of the subcommittee for yielding and also for his great leadership on issues that regard strengthening the middle class and growing the middle class in our country. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Neal when he extended his compliments to Mr. McCrery. He is a wonderful Member of Congress, and I am sorry to hear of his announced retirement. He will be missed here. I listened attentively to Mr. McCrery's comments and want to speak to them because I think they pose the question that this House has to decide upon this evening very clearly. Mr. Rangel and Mr. Neal have given us the opportunity here tonight to send a clear message to the American people that the leverage in this country has changed to the middle class now instead of protecting the assets of the top 1 percent in our country. Mr. McCrery says to give a tax cut, to prevent a tax increase we are going to increase taxes. Hello? He said, Hello? Hello, Mr. McCrery; yes, we are going to give tax relief to 23 million Americans, 23 million Americans, and approximately 5,000 to 10,000 Americans will be paying the tab. And they will be paying the tab because this legislation closes a loophole. We are closing a loophole. These hedge fund CEOs who have taken their profits offshore to avoid taxes, this is called tax evasion, and this loophole closes that. So yes, tax relief for 23 million families, 10,000 or fewer people paying the price. What is the alternative? As Mr. Neal mentioned, to borrow. Happily, my colleagues, for those of you who may not know, I got my seventh grandchild this weekend. And as it is with grandchildren, you always think of the world in which they will live and what we are doing, the fiscal soundness, in the country in which they will live. So what we are saying to this newborn baby, we have a choice here tonight. We can either close the loophole of tax evasion for the wealthiest people in America in order to give tax relief to 23 million families in America, 5,000 to 10,000 get an increase, 23 million get tax relief, or we can say to the little baby and all little babies born across America and all their children, you are going to pay the tab because this money will be borrowed, probably from a foreign government, possibly from China, $50 billion. Fifty billion dollars. Put that on your tab, little baby, because you are going to be paying that price for a long time. So it is either the American taxpayer, future generations, suffering if we go the Republican route, or it will be fairness, fairness, a new principle in tax policy in our country. The choice is clear. We choose tax relief for 23 million families with 10,000 or fewer people paying the tab. The wealthiest people, producing billions of dollars, billions of dollars once their loopholes are closed in order to foot the bill or passing this on to our children. I wonder if our colleagues would be willing, when we talk about AMT, the alternative minimum tax and paying for it, or any other issue when we try to pay for it, if they would be interested when they suggest that we not pay for it, if they would be willing in the same vote to vote to increase the debt ceiling, because that is exactly what you are proposing. Let us not pay for this. Let us increase the national debt in order to give comfort to people who are evading their taxes by going offshore to the tune of billions of dollars. So I think what the Ways and Means Committee has done is masterful. It is a mystery to me why it isn't bipartisan, and I hope that the bright light that we can shine on it tonight of fairness will encourage the Senate to support this legislation. Not to pay for the AMT middle-class tax relief is really a hoax on the American people. I know that in the course of the debate my colleagues will make that clear. I thank you. We have had many proud days in this Congress, when we passed SCHIP, the health insurance for 10 million American children, when we passed many pieces of legislation that related to our children, their health and education and the economic security of their families, the environment in which they live, a world at peace in which they can survive, but none of them has been as proud a day for me as when the Democrats stood tall for the middle class giving them tax relief, having it paid for so that those little children do not have to inherit the debt. Once again, let's make this the children's Congress and vote for this important legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in San Francisco and my colleagues in the Bay Area delegation, I want to thank Chairmen Oberstar and Cummings, and Ranking Members Mica and LaTourette, for their cooperation in bringing this resolution to the floor. The San Francisco Bay is one of Northern California's most precious resources. Its biodiversity and fundamental role in commerce and recreation make it essential to the vitality of the entire Bay Area. The Bay is special to San Franciscans. We bring our kids and grandkids here to play and learn about the environment. We surf and sail. And we appreciate the precious ecosystem that exists on the beaches, in the estuaries, under the water, and in the nearby National Marine Sanctuary--the Gulf of the Farallones. So protection of this Bay--its safety and its health--has always been a high priority. Any harm to the Bay is a serious matter, and when disaster struck on November 7th our community was quick to respond. Thousands of Bay Area residents immediately volunteered to clean beaches, rescue wildlife and undo the damage caused by this devastating spill. City officials worked with federal authorities on a volunteer management agreement to train and deploy local volunteers who were qualified to assist with difficult shoreline and wildlife recovery efforts. As a result, over 1,000 members of the Bay Area community were quickly trained and credentialed. In addition, community non-profit organizations such as San Francisco Connect and the San Francisco Volunteer Center rallied support; environmental organizations like Baykeeper, Save the Bay and the Bay Institute offered their expertise; and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, members of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, commercial crabbers and other Bay Area fishermen offered their equipment and experience. Today's resolution honors all of the individuals, organizations and officials who volunteered their time, their skills and their energy in response to this disaster. Their commitment to both the environment and their community saved wildlife from oil residue, protected the Bay's ecosystem and made our beaches safe again for Bay Area families. As it says in the Bible, `to minister to God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' To all of those who ministered to the Bay, I thank you as a San Franciscan, as one who is honored to represent our great city in this House, and as Speaker of the House.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day for our country, a day in which this Congress can declare itself a Congress for the future, a Congress for America's children. Earlier today, some of you saw me reference this baseball signed by Bobby Thomson: ``The shot heard round the world,'' October 3, 1951, a historic day in baseball. When he signed this baseball, he referenced a phrase used by Ralph Waldo Emerson referencing the shot fired at Concord, which began the Revolutionary War, the fight for American independence. If Bobby Thomson could reference a shot heard round the world, we should indeed be able to do it today. This vote on this legislation will be a shot heard round the world for energy independence for America. I want to thank some of the people who made this possible. As many of you know, at the beginning of this Congress, our Chairs of the appropriate committees were tasked to prepare legislation to be ready to be introduced by the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. They did so, and on June 30, in preparation for the Fourth of July weekend, we introduced our legislation. I want to begin by thanking Mr. Dingell for his exceptional leadership as Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This bill is about America's national security. Mr. Dingell has always been about that. He has dedicated his life, starting in World War II, in his public service for our country. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. Another great veteran in this arena, Mr. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War, was an important part of this legislation with the pay-fors from the Ways and Means Committee. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. Earlier you heard from Mr. Oberstar and the important work he is doing with the greening of America's Federal buildings and many other resources. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Waxman of Oversight and Government reform; Mr. Miller of Education and Labor, where we are having our green jobs initiative; Mr. Rahall from Natural Resources, making an important contribution to this legislation; Mr. Lantos from Foreign Affairs; Mr. Gordon from Science, the Science and Technology Committee has been central to this legislation; Mr. Peterson from the Agriculture Committee. America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East. Congresswoman Velazquez from Small Business, where small businesses will be the incubator of this new economy. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez. And Congressman Markey of the Select Committee, thank you also for your tremendous leadership for over 30 years on this issue. I mention all of my colleagues, these chairmen, not only to salute them, but to say they started a process over a series of months where practically every member of these 11 committees of Congress had an opportunity, Democrats and Republicans alike, to weigh in on the initial legislation, which was introduced in time for the Fourth of July, as promised, and which was passed by this Congress in the first week of August; and it is the follow-up on that legislation that we are voting on today. It is a part of our first 100 hours. As we near the end of this session of Congress, we can harken back to that first 100 hours, our Six for '06. Our first piece of legislation was about how we protect America, passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am so pleased that that was passed with strong bipartisan support in this House and was signed by the President. The minimum wage was passed with strong bipartisan support in this House of Representatives and was signed by the President. Making college affordable, the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill of Rights in 1944, passed by the Congress, signed into law by the President. The biggest legislation for ethics reform in the history of the Congress, bipartisan majority, strong overwhelming support, and signed into law. In the course of time, passing Mr. Gordon's bill, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one, the Innovation Agenda, the COMPETES Act, overwhelming majority, bipartisan majority, signed into law by the President. I mention all of these because they have bearing on what we are doing today. It is about our national security, it is about jobs and the economic security of our country. It is about the environment, and therefore it is a health issue. It is a moral issue. With all that I have said, that is why we have scientists and evangelicals, we have business and labor, we have the environmental community, all strongly supporting this legislation. And here are some of the reasons why. I will give you their words. Over 20 generals have signed a letter saying that we have to move in this direction in terms of reversing global warming. But, very specifically, the other day we heard from Admiral Denny McGinn, and he said this: ``Our dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to Americans. Your vote for tough fuel economy standards is a vote for increasing our safety and our well-being.'' This is a national security issue. It is an issue that relates to our environment and therefore the health of our children. That is why the Pew Charitable Trusts for Fuel Efficiency wrote: ``If the House and Senate finally approve this and the President signs it, they will have done more for consumers at the pump than any Congress or administration since the 1970s.'' They were referencing also the fact that the consumers will save $700 to $1,000 as a result of this bill, per year. And over a period of time until 2020, they will save $22 billion. That is why the Consumer Federation of America is supporting this bill. It is about American jobs. The president of the Alliance of American Automobile Manufacturers wrote: ``We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage.'' I could submit for the record a long list of representatives of the business and labor community who are supporting this legislation. And labor, the legislative director of the UAW, Alan Reuther, says: ``We believe that this historic measure will provide substantial energy security and environmental benefits for our Nation while protecting and expanding jobs for our workers.'' The list goes on. National security, jobs, the environment, the health of our children, and the future of this planet, as well as the consumer benefits. It is, again, a historic day because it has been so long since we have come to the place where we are, as has been said, over 30 years since we have addressed this issue in this substantial way in the Congress of the United States. The point of this is, are we about the past or are we about the future? I hope that we can have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. We were able to accomplish in this 12-month period, as Mr. Emanuel said, in this 12-month period, what was not done in 32 years in the Congress of the United States. So, my friends, I ask you to think about this vote and take great pride when you cast a ``yes'' vote. Many of you are far away from your legacy, but when that day comes, I hope you will consider this day a part of that legacy when you made history in this Congress of the United States. And not only did you make history; you made progress for the American people. They are watching to see what we do. This legislation is as immediate to them as the price at the pump that they face when they fill up their tanks. It is as immediate to them as heating their homes. It is as global as preserving this planet. If you believe, as do I, and I think all of us do, that this is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it, that is why we have strong support from the religious community, including the evangelical community, then I hope you will take this act of faith today to make history and to make progress for the American people, especially to declare this the Children's Congress. Thank you, my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, my colleagues. I accept that recognition as a recognition of the role of Speaker of the House, a role that Dennis Hastert performed with great distinction, and I rise to salute his leadership, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues, you have heard me say on a number of occasions in relationship to Dennis Hastert that in the Congress, as Members of Congress, we hold the title ``Honorable'' by virtue of our office that we hold. But in the case of Dennis Hastert, he holds the title of ``Honorable'' not just for the office he holds, but by virtue of his character, his leadership, and his contributions to our country. About a year and a half ago in June we all observed a celebration for Speaker Dennis Hastert when he became the longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House. Long may his record stand. That milestone was testament to the great respect he commanded not only in the Republican Conference but in this Congress as a whole and in our country. Thank you, Dennis Hastert, for your record of achievement. I want to acknowledge someone who had a role that I once had, minority leader, who is with us today and honors us with his presence and again is a tribute to the leadership of Dennis Hastert, Minority Leader Bob Michel. Many of you know but I think it always bears repeating that Dennis Hastert has long had a commitment to our country, first as a teacher: for 16 years, a teacher of our children, and a coach, as he reminds us. He then went on to the State legislature in Illinois where he served for 6 years. And then in 1986 he came to the Congress of the United States where he has served with great distinction and with many accomplishments, and he enumerated some earlier. In 1999, this Congress elected him the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House. He brought to that office the values of the heartland of America and the wishes and the voice for the people of Illinois' 14th Congressional District, and we have all benefited from that. Although we have from time to time on occasion differed on issues, I remember once, we all agree on the importance of public service, the kind of public service that has been the hallmark of Speaker Hastert's career, whether in the classroom or in the Congress of the United States. Today I want to join my friend, Dennis, in saluting Jean for sharing Dennis with us for all these years and for her role as a teammate to him and his contributions to our country. And thanks to Joshua and Ethan and to your entire family. Mr. Speaker, and by that Mr. Speaker I am speaking to Speaker Dennis Hastert, I know I speak for everyone in this House when I thank you for your service, for many things, which I could enumerate, but I want to mention one in particular which I have mentioned to this House before. We all were part of history when Rosa Parks became the first African American woman to lie in state under the Capitol dome. It was a great day for Congress and for our country. It simply would not have happened without the leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to say I know I speak for every Member of this House, but I know I do when I say thank you for your leadership, congratulations on a great career. I know great things are yet to come. Best wishes to you and your family. Godspeed in your future. God truly blessed America with your service to our country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as one who has long served on the Intelligence Committee, I understand full well the threats to our national security. I understand full well the need for us to have legislation that strikes the proper balance between liberty and security. I think this legislation does just that. And I commend Chairman Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Reyes, for their important work and their leadership in presenting this legislation to the floor for consideration. The bill is important and accomplishes the goal of striking the balance between security and liberty in the following ways: it defends Americans against terrorism and other threats; it protects Americans' civil liberties; and it restores checks and balances. The bill protects Americans by providing the Director of National Intelligence with the flexibility he has requested of Congress to conduct electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States. No warrants are required whenever foreign-to-foreign communications are captured regardless of the point of collection or anywhere in the world. It protects our civil liberties in a number of ways. The DNI has agreed that when Americans are targeted for surveillance, a warrant is required. We have now included certain criteria that the government must take into account in considering whether a warrant is required. This will help prevent inappropriate warrantless surveillance and ``reverse targeting'' of Americans under the guise of foreign intelligence. The bill restores checks and balances. This is very, very important because it, again, is part of our oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States. The bill rejects groundless claims of ``inherent executive authority.'' There are those who claim that the President has inherent authority from the Constitution to do whatever he wishes. Long ago our Founders rejected that concept in founding our country. We must do that as well and continue to make that clear. The legislation also makes clear that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence. The government must seek approval from a FISA Court. So we are talking about the Congress of the United States passing legislation, as it did in the late seventies, passing this legislation today which is in light of the new technologies and new reality in the world, and recognizing the authority of the third branch of government: the courts. This legislation includes extensive reporting to Congress with respect to the interception and dissemination of communications among Americans and from Americans. This is very important because we want to minimize the use of that information and keep it for the purpose for which it is collected. Most significantly, the bill does not provide immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. We cannot even consider providing immunity unless we know exactly what we are providing immunity from. And even then, and even then, we have to proceed with great caution. It is important to note that the bill sunsets on December 31, 2009, the date the PATRIOT Act sunsets, so the next administration and the next Congress can review and reassess the program. This legislation is supported by organizations dedicated to protecting our national security and protecting our civil liberties, including the Center for National Security Studies, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and many other groups that work to protect privacy rights. The bill protects both national security and civil liberties, reaffirms our constitutional system of checks and balances, and deserves the support of this House. Mr. Speaker, all of us want our President to have the best possible intelligence, our President and our policymakers, so they can do the best possible job to protect the American people. But no President, Democrat or Republican, should have the authority, to have inherent authority, to collect on Americans without doing so under the law. This legislation establishes that principle; and it establishes it in a very focused way in keeping with the need for flexibility for the Director of National Intelligence, in keeping with honoring our oath of office to the Constitution. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation. I, for one, am very, very proud of the work of Mr. Conyers and Mr. Reyes and thank them for their leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I commend Geraldine Gennet for her outstanding service and dedication to the House of Representatives. In her 11 years as General Counsel of the House, Geraldine set a standard for professionalism and non-partisanship that will inform the work of the new General Counsel and all future holders of that position. She created an Office of General Counsel that is respected by all Members of the House and widely recognized for its excellence throughout the legal community. I wish Geraldine continued success and happiness in her new endeavors.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership in bringing this important legislation, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, America honored our veterans, something that we do every day in our hearts but which we openly celebrated on that day. I am very proud that this year we could celebrate also the biggest increase in veterans benefits in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration thanks to the New Direction Congress. Yesterday, the President of the United States signed the Defense appropriations bill with the biggest increase in defense spending, made necessary because we must rebuild the capacity of our troops, which capacity has been weakened by the war in Iraq. And today, we bring before the Congress new direction legislation regarding the orderly and responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. This legislation is necessary because whatever you may have thought about the war or the conduct of the war or the origin of the war, whatever you may think about the performance of the Iraqi Government there, and I have my views on that subject, the fact is we can no longer militarily sustain the deployment in Iraq. Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option. Our troops have performed their duties magnificently, excellently, patriotically, and courageously. We owe them the deepest gratitude for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices that they and their families are willing to make. But even as they tried to create and had their military successes, God bless them for that, the secure framework was established to enable the Iraqi Government to make the political change necessary to end the civil war. Well, the sacrifice of our troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi Government. How much longer should we expect our young people to risk their lives, their limbs, their families, for an Iraqi Government that is not willing to step up to the plate? This legislation today offers something fundamentally different from what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end, costing trillions of dollars at the expense of our military readiness. In fact, it offers something different than this House has done before. Indeed, it provides the tools to our troops so that they can get their jobs done with the greatest respect for that job. But it also presents a strategy that will bring them home responsibly, honorably, safely, and soon. The legislation is different because it ties the funding to a strategy for redeployment. It is different because the funding provided is for the short term so that we can measure the administration's plan, if there is such a plan, to redeploy the troops on the schedule established in this bill. We do have a military crisis not seen since Vietnam. Equipment is wearing out and needs to be replaced. Our troops, wherever they are, are only being trained for counterinsurgency in Iraq instead of a wider training for a full range of missions that they may be called on to perform. The deployment schedule of the Bush administration is wearing down our forces, plain and simple. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has made this readiness issue the cornerstone of his opposition to this war in Iraq. The distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on Defense has told us over and over again that this deployment in Iraq cannot be sustained without weakening our national security, without diminishing the capacity of our armed services to meet challenges to our national security wherever they may occur. As such, this readiness crisis poses a grave threat to America's national security. Yet under the President's plan, and this was expressed by representatives of the administration on more than one occasion, the President's plan would bring 30,000 troops, the number of troops that were sent in for the surge, that 30,000 troops would be redeployed back to the U.S. by July of 2008. So let's understand this. This means that by July of 2008, we will have the same number of troops in Iraq as we had in November of 2006 when the American people called for a new direction in Iraq. Again, we cannot afford the President's commitment in Iraq. It traps us. It traps us, and we cannot, while we are in that trap, address our readiness crisis. This redeployment, in addition to undermining our military capacity to protect the American people, is also unsustainable financially. According to a recent report by the Joint Economic Committee, this war could end up costing American taxpayers $3 trillion. We will pay any price, as President Kennedy said, to protect the American people, but without us going into the shortcomings of this war and the President's execution of it, $3 trillion, think of the opportunity cost of that money in our readiness, in the strength of our country, in our reputation in the world. The legislation before us is important. Again, the title of it is the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. It would begin redeployment within 30 days of enactment and have a goal of completing the redeployment by December 15, 2008. The legislation requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces from being in combat to diplomatic and force protection, to targeted counterterrorism and limited support for the Iraqi security forces. It would prohibit the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, for your leadership on that subject and on this one as well and so many others. It requires that all U.S. Government agencies and personnel abide by the Army Field Manual's prohibition against torture. The legislation that Mr. Obey has brought to the floor, and I salute your leadership over and over again on this subject and so many others, Mr. Chairman, the House must choose between the President's plan for a 10-year war without end, no end in sight, the longer we're there, the harder it is to come out, the longer we're there, the more severely it hurts our military readiness; or a Democratic plan for responsible, honorable, safe redeployment out of Iraq and soon. Our troops have already paid too high a price for this war: 3,850 U.S. troops killed, 28,000 injured, thousands of them permanently. That is, of course, the biggest price to pay. But the price that we are paying in our reputation in the world for us not to be able to take our rightful place as a leader in the world to make the world safer, to make the region, the Middle East, more stable, and so many other challenges that the world faces, whether it's the eradication of disease, the alleviation of poverty, the curbing of global warming, keeping peace, ending the fury of despair that contributes to the violence in the world. The countries of the world are crying out for American leadership, and at the same time they disrespect us for what is happening in Iraq. We must act now to provide a new direction because it is clear that the President has turned a blind eye to all of this. And in addition to what I said earlier, our troops paying the biggest price, our reputation in the world, the several-trillion-dollar price tag to the taxpayer, and the cost to our readiness, despite the fact that the President has turned a blind eye to the facts of Iraq and a tin ear to the wishes of the American people to take a new direction in Iraq and bring our troops home, we must act today. I hope that our colleagues will all support this legislation because in doing so and if it is enacted into law and if this policy is pursued, we can resume our rightful place in the world. We can refocus our attention, as Mr. Obey said earlier, on the real war on terrorism, and we can make the American people safer by rebuilding and restoring the readiness and the capacity of our military to protect the American people wherever our interests are threatened. All of us stand here and take an oath of office by pledging to protect and defend the Constitution. In that preamble, to provide for the common defense is one of our first responsibilities. Unless we do that, protect the American people, nothing else is possible. So let us support this legislation which helps us honor our oath of office to defend the American people and to respect the sacrifice, the courage, the patriotism of our troops to make us the home of the brave and the land of the free. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and respect the leadership also of the distinguished ranking member of that committee. Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. It enables us as Members of Congress to plant a flag for fiscal responsibility, to plant a flag for the middle class in our country, and to plant a flag for competitiveness, to keep America number one. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is important because it provides long overdue middle-class tax relief, preventing a tax increase that will fall upon the middle class come this next year. The bill is about tax fairness; it is about fiscal responsibility; and, again, it is about keeping America competitive. When we talk about fiscal responsibility, unfortunately, it always seems necessary, after listening to my Republican colleagues, to set the record straight. The Democratic Party is the party of fiscal responsibility. When President Clinton was President, his four final budgets were in surplus. He left office with our budget on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. Sadly, the Bush administration reversed that taking us to over $3 trillion in deficit, a swing. Now we are at a swing of about $10 trillion, a swing that is greater than anyone has ever seen in history in terms of fiscal irresponsibility. And what did the Congressional Budget Office under the Republican leadership say was the leading cause for that? Tax cuts for the wealthy. Don't blame it on the war; don't blame it on anything other than what it really was: tax cuts for the wealthy. And so today we see a change. Tax cuts for the wealthy under the Bush administration and a Republican Congress paid for by the middle class. Today we reverse that: tax cuts for the middle class, paid for by the wealthiest people in our country. And as we give this tax break, who is getting it? Think of it, 23 million middle-class families are protected from higher taxes due to the alternative minimum tax. Thirty million homeowners will receive property tax relief. Twelve million children will benefit from the expanded child tax credit, and 4.5 million families will get help affording college education. This is in addition to our earlier investment of the largest expansion of college affordability since the GI Bill in 1944. Thousands of our men and women in uniform will receive tax relief under the earned income tax credit. They were prohibited from qualifying for that because our Republican colleagues would not disregard combat pay in that consideration. So fiscal responsibility, tax cuts for the middle class, and competitiveness for our country. This weekend as we go into observing Veterans Day, we all know the great debt of gratitude we owe our veterans for their service to our country, their sacrifice, their patriotism and the sacrifices they and their families are willing to make. What veterans have done over the generations is to protect our democracy. Essential to the success of a democracy, though, is a thriving middle class, in our country and in countries throughout the world, a thriving middle class. And this legislation is in furtherance of supporting that middle class and therefore supporting our democracy. In keeping with our pay-as-you-go rules with no new deficit spending, this legislation will ensure that our children will not inherit a legacy of debt. In terms of competitiveness, this legislation extends the R&D tax credit and new markets tax credits, among other things; but I mention those two because they are directly related to our Innovation Agenda, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. So, again: fiscal responsibility, favoring the middle class, keeping America competitive and number one. Democrats are committed to putting middle-class families first. The choice is simple: tax relief for millions of middle-class families or protecting tax loopholes, the Wall Street loophole, that allows a privileged few to pay a lower rate than America's teachers, firefighters, nurses, doctors, police, and our men and women in uniform fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about the people who are the backbone of America. The choice is a simple one. Today we Democrats say join us in voting in favor of America's middle class. I urge the passage of this legislation and again commend the distinguished chairman and distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Neal, for their leadership. I am proud of the courage that my colleagues have shown to protect our middle class and to do so in a fiscally sound way and in a way that, again, keeps America competitive, honoring the service of our men and women in uniform, to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank Mr. Andrews of New Jersey for his leadership on this important issue. He knows, as does the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Miller, that discrimination has no place in America. Our country is a great country because we recognized that long ago, but we have more work to do. I thank them both for their strong leadership in fighting discrimination and thank them for, in the case of Mr. Miller, decades of service and leadership on social justice. I commend Mr. Andrews for his commitment to protecting the rights of America's workers. This is truly an historic day. Today, the House of Representatives will consider and hopefully pass for the first time the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, or ENDA. As someone who has looked forward to this day for 20 years that I have served in Congress, it is a joyous occasion. It simply would not have been possible without the outstanding leadership and courage of Chairman Barney Frank and of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. Anyone who cares about a country without discrimination is deeply in debt to Tammy Baldwin and to Barney Frank for their leadership in this regard. While ENDA's victory will represent an historic victory, I share the disappointment of Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank and others who support including protection for transgender individuals in ENDA. While I had hoped that we could have included gender identity, I support final passage of ENDA because its passage will build momentum for further advances on gender identity rights and the rights of all Americans. America is a country that is great and wealthy, but we cannot afford to squander the talents of any of our citizens, nor should we. We all benefit if everyone gets a chance to work hard and support their families. Yet today, in 30 States an American can be denied a job or fired because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. This is wrong. Working Americans should be judged on one criterion, their job performance, and not be subjected to prejudice. Madam Chairman, our history teaches us that progress on civil rights is never easy. It is often marked by small and difficult steps. We must take this step today toward the ideal of equality that is both our heritage and our hope. I've heard the use of the word ``tolerance'' today, and I respect the use of that word, but if I may respectfully depart from it and say that in my community that is blessed with a diverse community, our diversity is of all kinds: religion, gender identification, religious faith and the rest. And I always say that the beauty is in the mix. And it's not that we're tolerant in my district in California in San Francisco; it is that we have so much respect for the role that each person plays in our society. So tolerance, maybe; respect, definitely. But let me also add that it is the pride that we take in that diversity, and it is the pride that I take in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community that brings me to the floor today to urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and thank her for her excellent work as a member of the Rules Committee in managing this important rule to the House. Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a difficult issue for Members to decide upon because it goes right to the heart of family life in America. It's about the job security, the economic security, the health security of America's families. And the issue of trade has been one that has been controversial, and frankly, I have largely been more on the other side of it than I am tonight. I rise in support of the Peru Trade Agreement, and I want to tell my colleagues why. They will have to make up their own minds. But I want to take the opportunity to talk about it in the context of the last, say, 20 years. That is how long I have been in Congress. For most of that time, I have fought with a Democratic President and a Republic an President, starting with President Bush 41, Father Bush, and throughout the Clinton administration on the issue of China trade. I saw it clearly as a threat to the economic security of America's working families. I could see the patterns that were developing there. But all along, those powers that be always said, no, this is the enlightened course. At the time, when we started this debate on China, which was right after the massacre in Tiananmen Square, the trade deficit between the U.S. and China, the trade deficit we suffered, was around $5 billion a year. $5 billion a year. It sounded like all the money in the world to us at the time, $5 billion a year. How much leverage could we have to open China's markets? To stop them violating our intellectual property? To have them free the prisoners arrested in Tiananmen Square? To have them stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction? We fought so much leverage. But Washington, D.C. was very much influenced by the Government of the People's Republic of China. And so all of the powers that be told us, if only we went down the path that they were recommending, that markets would be open to us, that political reform would come, all of these things, China would stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction to places like Iran and Pakistan, to name a few. What happened was none of the above. But strictly on the issue of trade, say, 17, 18, years ago, a trade deficit of about $5 billion a year. Stick with us, they told us, and great things would happen in this relationship. Oh, they did. For China. The trade deficit now with China is approximately $5 billion a week. A week. It went from $5 billion a year to $5 billion a week. And all of the economic consequences that go with it, and all of the inferiority of product, threatening the food safety, the medicine safety, the toy safety in our country. That's what the sophisticated people told us that we should do was to go along the course that we have. The violation of intellectual property. That piracy is legendary. Of course, nothing has changed except we are now in about a $250 billion deficit to China. I bring that up because many of us in this room fought that fight. We invested a lot into it. And we were always cast aside as Luddites and unsophisticated people and Stone Age and didn't understand. But we do understand that the American workers paid a price for that. The markets didn't open to our products. Even with WTO that didn't happen. And, again, the deficit speaks for itself. So I say from that level of passion and familiarity with the issue and being in the fight for a long time, that when I saw an opportunity for us to have labor and environmental standards as a core part of our trade agreements, it marked a drastic difference from what even a Democratic President was willing to give on that score, even a Democratic President. We couldn't get that in the Clinton administration. So I want to commend Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin, the two chairmen, for the excellent work that they did. I tell you the China story just as a background as to how difficult it was before. No matter what the evidence, no matter how clear it was, others saw it differently, and they saw it wrong. So here we are today trying to make some distinctions, trying to make some distinctions about trade agreements that are better than others. I don't think any of them are perfect on either end. And so my reason for supporting this is, as a leader in the Democratic Party, is I certainly believe that part of the legacy of our great party is the legacy of John F. Kennedy who said that free trade was a part of who we are as a country and that international trade would be good for our economy. But we want not only free trade, we want fair trade. We are going to be Uncle Sam instead of ``Uncle Sap'' in these trade relationships. It had to be fair. It had to be right for our workers. As I say, this opportunity came along in a bipartisan way to say that unless labor and environmental standards were part of a trade agreement, it couldn't even be considered. It didn't mean it would be considered, but that was the threshold that all of these agreements had to cross. And then they would be judged on their individual merits in terms of the agreement between our two countries. Recognizing the fear and apprehension and uncertainty that exists in many families and homes across America because of their jobs going overseas, the businesses closing, their communities having a downturn, can't sell their home, all the consequences that go with that, the chairman put forth legislation that passed the House last week, which I hope that the President of the United States will sign. I think it is essential, essential, if we are going to accomplish anything on trade, on immigration or anything else, that people know that we share the concerns that they have and that we are doing something about it. So the trade adjustment in terms of training and opportunity and health care and all of those things was very, very important. That was done in the context of other things to address the needs of America's working families. Hopefully we can pass SCHIP to get 10 million children to have their health insurance, pass legislation to make college more affordable, raise the minimum wage, have an Innovation Agenda that says if we are going to compete in the world, we must innovate. We can't just complain about trade, we must innovate. And that innovation begins in the classroom, and it takes us right back to our college affordability, our initiatives of K-12, early childhood education and the rest. So I think we have to certainly be concerned about the impact of trade. It is self-evident and it is a challenge for us. But we cannot turn our backs on it. And I absolutely refuse to have the Democratic Party be viewed, and I say this to my Republican colleagues, I know you don't want to be viewed, but I have a responsibility also to my Democratic colleagues, I don't want this party to be viewed as an antitrade party. So, let's make some distinctions. Take every trade agreement on its own merit. The Peru Free Trade Agreement rises to the level of acceptance. I am not saying it is perfect. It rises to the level of acceptance. Labor and environmental principles are in the core of the bill. Other changes we wanted to see were made by the Parliament in Peru. They passed the laws or they made the changes we said they needed to have. So if you are ever going to support any trade agreement, I would think this would be the easiest one to do. Other trade agreements have other obstacles that have to be dealt with. I don't think we should shut the door on anything, because that gives nobody any motivation to make any change in what we would like to see as a free flow of goods to and from these countries. It is frustrating, and I respect everything that has been said by my colleagues in this debate. I think it is all legitimate. Some, like Marcy Kaptur, have been in this fight for a long time. Working families in America have no greater champion to advocate for the best possible outcome for them. But, again, viewing in the context of we want to have an economy that is fairer, that we have a progressive economic agenda where many more people participate in the economic success of our country, that is why we raised the minimum wage and make college more affordable, et cetera, and that is why we are promoting our Innovation Agenda for energy security and reversing global warming, so we can create many more jobs, so America's farmers can fuel America's energy independence, where we will send our energy dollars to the Midwest and not to the Middle East. This is a bigger picture than the Peru Free Trade Agreement. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is not a big deal in terms of trade agreements, but it is an important step into saying we can make distinctions about trade relationships that are grossly unfair to the American worker, greatly oppressive to the workers in their own countries and are not making people freer. And to those that are in furtherance of growing our own economy while helping to lift other economies in the world, I think in this case the Peru Free Trade Agreement goes in that direction. So, that is why, my colleagues, I am supporting this. It may seem to be a departure to some of you from where I have been on other trade agreements. But it is a marked difference, a marked difference from where we were before, whether it was President Bush I, whether it was President Clinton, and where we are now. Those many who have been on one side or the other of this all say it is an amazing accomplishment to have gotten that done. And for that, whatever the outcome of this vote is, for that I want to once again pay tribute to Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, chairman of the subcommittee, for the great leadership and the work they did. I just want you to know why I was supporting this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I commend Chairman Obey for his leadership of the Appropriations Committee, particularly on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee on which I had the privilege to serve for a number of years. I commend the chairman of the Veterans Quality of Life Subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's veterans. Everyone who wants to honor our promises to our veterans, everyone who salutes their service to our country owes a deep debt of gratitude to you, Mr. Edwards, for your extraordinary leadership. Madam Speaker, our national budget should be a statement of our national values. The legislation that we debate here today invests in America's correct priorities. It includes the largest increase in veterans benefits in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, and potentially life-saving biomedical research, and it does it all in a fiscally sound way. Madam Speaker, I have a long speech this evening. But in the interest of time, I am going to submit it for the Record and just say two things, because the main focus of this legislation is on our veterans and the other is on the investments made by the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee. In the military, it is said that we leave no soldier behind on the battlefield, and when they come home, we promise here in this House that we will leave no veteran behind. This legislation fulfills that promise to our veterans. The President has said that he will perhaps veto this bill. I hope that he will have a change of heart and a change of mind in that regard because those who care about our veterans, and I believe that includes everyone, I know everyone in this Chamber and in the Senate, in the Congress and in the country wants them to have what they have earned and what they deserve. In terms of the other aspects of the bill, I bring to the floor some deep concerns about the priorities that the President is criticizing in this bill. The President says he will veto any bill that is $1 more than what he has asked for in his budget. In this bill, we have $1.4 billion more for the National Institutes of Health. That isn't even enough to meet their needs, to meet the requests for grants that they have in any responsible way. But it is $1.4 billion more than what the President requests. And I can't help but juxtaposition the war in Iraq with this budget today. In the war in Iraq, we spend about 10, $12 billion a month, some of it unaccounted for, some of it in no-bid contracts, some of it in no-performance contracts, some of it the money has just disappeared. Democrats, in taking over the majority, have tried to hold the administration accountable. What we are finding is that it is hard to find some of that money. At the same time, consider this. As the President is spending 10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq, we spend 5 billion, $5\1/2\ billion a year on cancer research. In America, 550,000 people die of cancer each year. That doesn't count those who are diagnosed, those who are suffering with; I am just talking about 550,000 people who die of cancer. Wouldn't it be better for us to invest more money? Say we doubled the biomedical research for cancer research from $5.5 billion to $10 billion or $11 billion in a year. Think of the return that that could be in scientific advancement. We know the scientific opportunity is there. The heads of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, all the entities of government that deal with the health of the American people want more investments in their budgets; and yet their boss, the President of the United States, who has appointed them, has dismissed their professional judgment on these issues, and not only failed to fund, but threatened to veto if we in Congress try to meet those needs. Across America, almost every family, certainly probably every family in this body, has been affected by cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, you name it, the list goes on, all of which would benefit by a bigger, more robust investment in basic biomedical research in the budget of the National Institutes of Health. So that is why this bill is so important, because it directly relates to health and well-being of the American people and it directly relates to our national security and how we honor our commitment and our promises to our veterans. I wish the President were here, and I wish the rules of this House would allow us to address him directly because it's a mystery to me and I wonder how anyone who might consider our national budget a statement of our national values could possibly say that although I know that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are dying of cancer, and although I know that scientific opportunity exists that we are ignoring. We have a moral responsibility to fund that opportunity, that scientific opportunity, but which we are ignoring by the President's call for a veto. How do you justify that? So, my colleagues, I think it is really important that we send a message to the President in the only way that the rules allow us to do in this House, and that is to send it with this bill to the President's desk with a very, very strong vote, a vote for the health and well- being of the American people. How do you explain to your constituents that we cannot afford to find cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, as I said, and the list goes on, but we can afford to spend $1 trillion in Iraq, much of it unaccounted for, and do that all at the same time? I urge my colleagues to think about your friends, think about your neighbors, think about your families, think about your own responsibility to a healthy America when you make this vote, because you can make all the difference in the world. I think that we should vote as if the lives of our constituents depended upon this vote, because they certainly do. With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation and once again commend the presenters of this legislation for their great leadership. Our budget is a statement of our values. The legislation we debate today invests in American priorities: it includes the largest increase in veterans spending in the 77-year history of the VA, and potentially lifesaving medical research, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way. These bills have passed the House and Senate with the strong bipartisan majorities they deserve. The President has said he will veto these bills. But allow me to make the case that these are investments that are necessary and right. The Labor-HHS spending bill has been historically called the ``People's Bill.'' It is where Congress addresses the aspirations of the American people: the economic security of their families, the health and well being of their families, and the education of their children. Today, this bill is once again the ``People's Bill.'' This is because it makes crucial investments in the health of all Americans: every dollar spent on NIH research is returned to us manifold: in improved quality of life and millions of lives saved. We should be proud that NIH supported researchers have made the United States the world leader in biomedical and behavioral research, creating thousands of jobs and new businesses in the process. But in order to build upon past scientific achievements, address current medical needs, and anticipate future health challenges, we must make investments today. We stand today on the precipice of countless scientific breakthroughs. For example, mapping of the human genome has greatly advanced our knowledge about the links between genetics and diseases. Scientists are working right now to identify genetic changes that increase and decrease risk for cancer, to determine patterns of protein markers for very early detection of cancer, and to better treat and cure the disease. By funding these critical investments, we can declare a national war on cancer--a disease that kills 550,000 Americans a year. In my hometown, NIH is funding cutting edge research at the San Francisco VA Medical Center on the health of our veterans. Right now, scientists are breaking new ground in the diagnosis, prevention and management of disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries that result from combat. No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our Nation than those who serve in the Armed Forces. From the bitter cold winter at Valley Forge to the boiling hot Iraqi terrain, our soldiers have courageously answered when called, gone where ordered, and defended our Nation with honor. They have done everything asked of them. How we repay that service speaks volumes about our national character. I want to thank all of our veterans and military service organizations who have long advocated for the funding contained in this bill. I also want to thank Chairman Spratt, Chairman Obey, and Chairman Edwards for their leadership and their dedication to those who have worn our Nation's uniform. This bill provides $6.6 billion more than last year and $3.7 billion more than the President's budget. These are dollars well-invested. For example in this bill: We provide quality healthcare to 5.8 million America veterans, including 263,000 who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. We ensure that the veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan--one third of whom will be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and 300,000 who are expected to suffer from Traumatic Brain Injury--get the best treatment possible. We will ensure the poly-trauma centers and Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and PTSD are fully operational. For our veterans living in rural areas, this bill will increase the travel reimbursement rates for those who travel long distances to the nearest VA facility. These benefits have been earned. These are the benefits our veterans deserve. Madam Speaker, on this coming Monday, our Nation will honor its veterans with Veterans Day. But in this body, every day should be Veterans Day. On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, let it be our promise that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind. Today, we are delivering on that promise. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, in his nearly 20 years as a Member of the House, Congressman Mike McNulty has tirelessly served the people of New York with distinction. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Congressman McNulty has been a leader in the efforts to ensure America's seniors earn the guaranteed benefit they were promised. The Democratic Caucus, his constituents, and indeed the American people will miss the energy and intellect he brought to every endeavor. I wish him well and know he will enjoy spending more time with his children and grandchildren.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his important work on keeping America number one. In recent years, the increasing global market has brought many opportunities but has also created unprecedented challenges as to how we address the increased economic insecurity faced by many of America's working families. For a long time, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, trade policy has focused more on opening new markets and has dismissed the real consequences of those faced by those who lose their jobs as well as their communities across America that are hard hit. Democrats recognize that our economic future rests with our ability to open new markets for U.S. goods, especially since our markets are already largely open to our trading partners. However, the status quo is not working, and we must do much more to help American workers compete and thrive in the increasingly competitive global market. That is the purpose of this important legislation before us, the trade adjustment assistance bill. Mr. Speaker, being from Massachusetts, I'm sure you've read in the history books, for somebody of my age I recall, when President Kennedy called for the, called upon the American people with his challenge to put a man on the Moon and have him safely return within 10 years. It was very, very exciting. It was almost unbelievable, but it did happen. Why I mention it, though, is because in his remarks at that time, President Kennedy said, if we are to honor the vows of our Founders, we must be first, and therefore we intend to be first. For our science and industry, for peace and security, we must be first. And that's what this is about today, how America can continue to be number one. We have worked together with that Innovation Agenda in that spirit; the Innovation Agenda, much of which has been passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush. And it will help promote, will make serious and sustained investments in research and development, help promote the public-private partnerships that will develop high-risk, high-reward ideas into marketable technologies and more jobs for American workers. In other words, we're saying, if we are going to compete successfully, we must innovate, and that innovation begins in the classroom. So Democrats recognize in the global knowledge-based economy, America's greatest resource for innovation and economic growth resides within America's classrooms, and we have made a new commitment to encouraging students and encouraging highly qualified teachers in the field of math, science and engineering. We've also made higher education more affordable and accessible. Again, in the strong bipartisan way voted by the House, we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. That was signed into law by the President and has made the largest investment in college affordability since the GI Bill was passed in 1944, a bill that was referenced by our colleague, Mr. Sestak, earlier. We've also forged a new approach for free trade agreements where, for the first time, Democrats in Congress and Republicans, working with Mr. McCrery and Mr. Rangel, the chairman, working with the administration, were able to forge a new approach. For the first time, enforceable basic labor rights and environmental standards will be included in free trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration ensuring that our trading partners do not lure American jobs abroad through the use of weak labor laws and lax environmental standards. Today's bill is the next step in our agenda to expand economic security. It's a departure from the status quo. The current trade adjustment assistance initiative does not do enough to help those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Specifically, as has been mentioned before, the bill will dramatically expand the number of workers who will qualify for TAA benefits. This is very important. It will offer increased funding and options for workers' training so that individuals can pursue substantive training programs that lead to higher paying jobs. It will expand access to health care by strengthening and streamlining the health care tax credit and other health benefits so that workers are not forced to live without health care as they search for a new job. And it will revitalize communities decimated by manufacturing job loss with tax incentives. Those are some of the provisions of this important legislation. This would represent a huge step forward. This would say to the American people and the American workers who have lost their jobs or are concerned about losing their jobs to trade that they are not alone. The bill represents a renewed commitment to helping American workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Free and fair trade can only thrive if we help those who are facing the downside of a global economy. In the coming months, Democrats will continue to lay out a positive agenda to ensure economic growth and economic security for America's families. We will continue to pursue a positive agenda to keep America number one. I urge our colleagues to oppose the substitute and to support the underlying legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor. I want to commend the cochairs of our delegation, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman David Dreier, both from California, being the cochairs of our delegation, and all of our colleagues who come to the floor today and join us in expressing our appreciation to our men and women in uniform, our first responders, emergency services personnel, and our firefighters who conducted themselves in such a brave, brave and tireless manner to protect the people and the homes and businesses of California. Today, we thank God that the winds have finally died down and our brave first responders were able to contain the largest fire in the Golden State's history. As I said, our first responders, our firefighters, were courageous and tireless. More than 11,000 personnel, including thousands of firefighters from across California and neighboring States, and thank you to our neighboring States for their participation, and 2,500 of our brave National Guardsmen and -women worked through long days and nights to battle the dangerous flames. In doing so, as I said, they saved lives, homes and businesses. For that, we will be forever grateful. Today in California, five fires still burn. As these fires are quenched, the hard work of restoring the regular order of residents' lives begins. We can now begin the accounting of our staggering losses: seven dead and more than 100 injured; 500,000 acres burned; 1 million residents forced to evacuate; 1,400 homes destroyed across seven counties. But as the victims of the fire know, the tragedy can't be expressed in those numbers. It is in the lost baby photos and treasured mementos gone forever. It is in the fear of knowing that in an instant life can take a tragic turn. I salute Governor Schwarzenegger and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services for their efforts and leadership in protecting the people in the area and containing the fires. I am very pleased that President Bush responded to the request of the Governor and the California bipartisan delegation in declaring what was happening in California as a major disaster. Today, we vow that our response to this fire will not end once those flames are extinguished. The California congressional delegation will work in a bipartisan way with the entire Congress, with the Governor and the President to ensure short-term and long-term needs are met. To those who have suffered personal losses, whether it's the loss of a loved one, personal injury, loss of their homes and their communities, as Speaker of the House, I extend the deepest sympathy and the fullest support of the House of Representatives. We stand with you today and in the days of rebuilding to come. Once again, I acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Clay and Mr. Duncan and thank them for giving us this opportunity to express our appreciation to our firefighters and our first responders in California. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, and I thank you for bringing this opportunity to the floor where Congress again will have to make a decision about our priorities. The Congress will, I know, in a very strong bipartisan vote, support the children of America because this has always been, as the gentlewoman indicated, a bipartisan initiative. I first want to acknowledge the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his work over the years. I believe his committee had seven hearings on the legislation regarding SCHIP. And the distinguished Chair of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, is with us here. I also want to acknowledge the great work of Charlie Rangel, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been such a strong advocate for America's children in every way and, in particular, in this. He, too, had his markups on the bill, which improved the bill; and I want to acknowledge him and his distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Stark. But my highest praise goes to Republicans. Without the Republicans we wouldn't even have SCHIP. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah really is the father of this initiative. As he tells us, two families in Provo, Utah, visited him in his office. Both of these families have two wage- earners, both of them making minimum wage, trying to support their families of four each. They pled with him that they could not provide health insurance for their children. Because they were working and they were above the poverty line, they did not qualify for Medicaid, and so their hard work was rewarded, not so, by not having health insurance for their children and that was where this all began. Ten years ago, under a Democratic President, President Clinton, and a Republican Congress, this initiative, SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, became the law of the land; and God bless that bipartisan effort for making that possible for the health of our children. So Senator Hatch was very much a part of putting this legislation together, and the gentlemen are right, this is largely a Senate initiative. Senator Grassley, the former Chair of the Finance Committee from Iowa, also a distinguished Republican Member of the United States Senate, has worked harder than anyone to make this the law of the land again, to reauthorize this SCHIP, this children's health initiative, by his intellect, and helped shaping the bill, by his persuasion in talking to Members, including his persuasion of many of us who had a far different bill in mind but agreed to the compromises that he has put forth for the good of the children. That bill was vetoed. The original bill was vetoed by the President, as we all know. The veto was not overridden. So here we are again with another SCHIP in the image of the bill that received all of the attention before, but improved upon by suggestions made by our colleagues in the minority, our Republican colleagues. It wasn't that these issues weren't covered in the bill; but the clarity sought by the Republicans, and agreed to by all of us, I think are a definite improvement on the bill, and these fall into three areas. First, there was the question of the now-famous unlimited amount of wealth that a person could have in order to be able to avail themselves of SCHIP. I hesitate to even repeat the charge because it was so untrue and was known to be untrue, because none of the waivers for such action were ever given by President Bush. So that factual statement did not exist, but in any event, the fact is now and I thank our Republican colleagues for insisting upon the clarity that says no one making over 300 percent of poverty, no State can allow people to receive the benefits of SCHIP. So there's a cap, a 300 percent of poverty, as to who may receive the benefit. Secondly, the question of undocumented, those people who are in our country but have not been here that length of time that would qualify. So the undocumented are one category, and the undocumented are not allowed to receive benefits from this initiative. It was clear in the first bill. It's even clearer in the second bill. So the cap on who can receive it, stronger language as to undocumented, and, third, the issue of adults. Adults were in the program because people thought as a lure to families they could get children in the program. Republicans objected to that. There was an exaggeration of the number of adults who are in the program; but, nonetheless, in the interests of the children the new legislation contains a provision that adults, under one circumstance, will be phased out in 2 years and, in another circumstance, in 1 year, so that it's a faster, faster removal of adults from the system. As a mother of five, though, I have to insist that Governors still be allowed to provide health care to pregnant women because we cannot talk about the health of our children, especially getting one out to the earliest, healthiest start, unless we talk about the health of pregnant women. So, again, three areas: the cap, 300 percent; no illegal aliens, to use your term, I prefer undocumented, are able to get benefits; and adults are phased out of the program. The adults were only in the program because the Bush administration gave the waiver to enable them to be in the program; but, nonetheless, that is now out of the question. So we have this opportunity, once again, for this Congress to speak and vote in support of children. This is so important. It's a very positive day for me because when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing--our children, our children, our children: their health, the education, the economic security of their families, a safe and healthy environment in which they can thrive, and a world at peace in which they can reach their fulfillment. And on every one of those scores, this Congress has acted in a strong bipartisan way on behalf of the children. The health, we're talking about today. The education, this Congress in a strong bipartisan way passed the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill of Rights was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, over 60 years ago, and this Congress said we are standing with the children in terms of expanding their opportunity. The health today, the education and many other educational initiatives. I point that one out because it's a start. The economic security of their families, this Congress voted in a very strong bipartisan way to raise the minimum wage, the first time it was raised in 10 years, and with a strong bipartisan vote. Also, in a very strong bipartisan vote, we voted for the Innovation Agenda, the COMPETES Act, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one, keep good-paying jobs and businesses in the United States, helping the economic security of our families. And then the environment in which they live, again in a strong bipartisan way, we passed legislation to make the air they breathe, the water they drink cleaner. All of this was done, again strong bipartisan votes, highest ethical standard, no new deficit spending, all of it so that none of the advantages that we were conveying to children would be accompanied with a bill heaping mountains of debt onto them into the future. Part of that also was to operate in the most honest and open way. In a strong bipartisan way, we passed our ethics reform bill so that we are here for the children's interest and not special interests. So this Congress this year has had a strong bipartisan record in support of our children, and I thank both the Republicans and the Democrats for supporting those initiatives. Almost all of that except this SCHIP has been signed into law by the President of the United States. Some mention has been made about the fact that there is a fire in California, and as one who has had the privilege of representing the great Golden State of California for 20 years in the Congress, one who understands we had an earthquake in San Francisco, an earthquake in Los Angeles and now these disastrous fires, we all understand how important it is for Members to be at home with their constituents at a time of a natural disaster, a time of tragedy. But that doesn't mean we don't continue with the work of government. As Mr. Taylor so eloquently said earlier, he was with his constituents in Mississippi while we passed legislation that affected those people here in the Congress, and that was the appropriate way to go. It was then; it is now. As a matter of fact, I spoke to Governor Schwarzenegger the other day and acknowledged his leadership and the rapid response of the California emergency services team, which is the gold standard, a model for the country. I wanted to find out from him what needs he had from the Federal Government. At the time we had emergency designation. Now we have a major disaster designation by the President, and I salute the President for making that designation, and I thank him for visiting California today. According to Governor Schwarzenegger, all of the Federal resources that are available to those affected by the disaster, those resources are accessible to those who can help people with that, but we will be taking a bipartisan delegation of appropriators and others who can help meet their needs and get a better picture of what's on the ground there after the fire subsides. So this is something that is a very high priority for this Speaker of the House, the first Californian to ever serve as Speaker, with great love for our great State. The Governor in that conversation then said, How are we doing on SCHIP? He told me of the calls that he had made, and how important it was to pass this legislation. That's why we are here today. This is important not only to California's children, but children across the country. The Governor knows a million people have been displaced in California in this natural disaster, and 1.2 million in California will benefit from this SCHIP bill that we are passing in the Congress today. The Governor understands that. He has been a strong supporter of it, and he is helping us to pass this legislation, recognizing that we have to get the job done. Again, I salute him for his leadership, and I thank him for his support on SCHIP. Earlier this year under the chairmanship of George Miller, Congressman Chaka Fattah and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro we had a summit, a children's summit, where we had hundreds of scientists from all over the country who came and spoke about our children again, their health, their education, housing, really, every aspect of their lives. One of the people who spoke there was Dr. James Heckman, who is a Nobel laureate, received the Nobel Prize for his work on economics. He is the Director of the Center for Social Program Evaluation, Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. What he said that day was that the accident of birth is the greatest source of inequality in American society. He said, a good public policy for our children makes good economic sense. That is from an economist. I know, as a mom and a grandmother that it makes good sense to care for the health of our children. Our Members, I am sure, across the aisle and all of us here know how important the health of our children is. People across America have understood it. Easter Seals was here last week to advocate for this legislation. The March of Dimes was here on the day of the vote last week to advocate for this SCHIP legislation. Every organization from AARP and the AMA, the American Medical Association, to YWCA and everything in between alphabetically, Catholic Hospitals Association, Families USA, are out there beating the drum for the passage of this legislation. Imagine Easter Seals and March of Dimes, within 1 week, both sending hundreds of people to Capitol Hill to lobby for this legislation. It was astounding. I hope today, when our colleagues have to make a decision about this vote, that they will be thinking about the record of bipartisanship on behalf of America's children and families that this Congress already has. Sometimes it is eclipsed by the disagreement that we have on the war, but it is a fine record, and it is stronger because it is bipartisan. I hope that our colleagues will be thinking about the children. Some of these little children, one of them, Zeke Taylor, he wasn't a beneficiary of SCHIP. March of Dimes helped him through his early years when he needed health care. But he wanted other children to have that, because he, at age 8 years old, as the ambassador for the March of Dimes, knew that it was important to him and, therefore, it was important to other children as well. As my colleagues, we are pretty blessed, when you think of it. Think of those of us who will be voting today. We all have health insurance for our children. In my case, it's grandchildren. My children are grown, so it's not a question of that. But you who have children who are still, God bless you, I am so jealous, have your children home, you have health insurance for your children. The people we are trying to reach with this health insurance can't afford it. By the way, nearly, over 90 percent of them make one-fifth of what a Member of Congress makes, one-fifth of what a Member of Congress makes. So we are talking about people who are playing by the rules who are working to lift themselves into the middle class or to sustain their place in the middle class. We are talking about a country who has not as an issue, not as a piece of legislation, but a deeply held value, an ethic, that to be a great Nation we have to take care of the health of our children. It should almost go without saying, but it doesn't, and we need the public policy, as Dr. Heckman said, good public policy for our children. We say it is necessary for their health and well-being. He also says that it is essential to our economy. So there is every compassionate, humanitarian, motherly, fatherly, family reason to be for this legislation, but it also makes good economic sense. By the way, it also makes good national security sense. Again, we have had our moment. We are like a family here. We have had our moments. It's time to put the children first. I urge all of you to support this legislation that is before us for America's children, for all of America's children, to take our country in a new direction for them.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this rule to the floor that will enable us to vote for this important bipartisan bill which has broad support, H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. I commend our colleague, Mr. Boucher, for his persistent and relentless leadership on this legislation. In advancing this, Mr. Boucher, you have advanced the cause of protecting our existing wilderness, and all of us who care about the wilderness and our park lands are deeply in your debt. As we come to the floor, though, today, Mr. Speaker, I do want to call additional attention of my colleagues that as we gather here this afternoon, wildfires are raging in my home State of California. The President has declared an emergency. I hope that it will be limited to that. But the way the fire is raging, I'm afraid it may come to the point of a major disaster. The Governor of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, has just reported that 750 homes have been totally destroyed, 68,000 homes are endangered; 250,000 acres of land, an area the size of the entire City of New York, has been devastated by the fire, much of it wilderness areas. And in addition to that, 365,000 people have been evacuated from their homes. In any consideration of what is happening there, it's very important to salute our firefighters for their courage and their tireless, tireless effort to end this fire, which is a tough battle because of the winds and, hopefully, they will die down soon. It is possible that if the fire continues to rage, we may have to appeal to the President to declare this a major disaster and therefore eliminate any capping of support that we would have for California, and that would have implications, as we know, for other fires that may occur in our country. So this is when the American people look to government to step up to the plate and to be there for them. The firefighters are doing their share. The people are acting in a very responsible way in the evacuations. The local government is doing well, according to what the Governor says and, of course, the State of California has this as an emergency of the highest, highest order. So far they have been able to avail themselves of whatever is available from the Federal Government. We may have to expand on that if the fires continue to rage. But to those who have suffered personal losses, whether it's the loss of a loved one, personal injury, loss of their homes and their communities, I extend the deepest sympathy and the fullest support as Speaker of the House of Representatives. With that, again, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Boucher's bipartisan legislation to protect the Virginia wilderness, and in advance of any needs that we may have for the wildfires in California, inform my colleagues of the extent of the damage that we know to date and the need that we have for support. This compact between the people and the Federal Government is never called upon more strongly than in time of a natural disaster of this kind.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his exceptional leadership on this issue. The issue of health care for Americans has been a signature issue for the Dingell family. Mr. Dingell, the distinguished chairman's father, was the author of legislation for access to health care for all Americans. He continues that tradition. He was in the chair the day and gaveled the vote on Medicare. So thank you for your years of experience and leadership, and, again, your leadership on this important issue of insuring our children. This isn't about an issue; this is about a value. Thank you, Mr. Stark, thank you, Mr. Pallone, for your leadership, and thanks to the distinguished Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for his important and relentless leadership on this issue. My colleagues, as I listen to the debate today, I hear a lot of subterfuge and distractions; but the fact is that this is a discussion about America's children and it is a discussion about America. There is no industrialized country in the world that anyone respects that does not provide health insurance for its children. We are the exception. This is not a designation to be proud of. But the American people in their wisdom have this not as an issue, but as a value, as an ethic. That is why I am so proud of what has transpired since we took our first vote on this bill. That day I said we could establish ourselves as ``the Children's Congress,'' and we did. Work remains to be done to bring that to fruition. In the meantime, across our country, Democrats and Republicans, Governors and mayors, people who work with children or have the responsibility of delivering a system of health care have been advocating for this reauthorization of SCHIP that we have before us today. Every organization you can name, from AARP to YWCA, and everything in between, the American Medical Association, Catholic Hospital Association, Families USA, every organization you can name is supporting this legislation. I am so proud, because earlier this week Easter Seals representatives covered the Hill with hundreds of advocates visiting Members' offices. We were pleased to hear from the president of Easter Seals, President James Williams, who said, ``Without health care coverage, our early intervention in other programs for children cannot be successful.'' That is why the Easter Seals organization was here. He was very eloquent in his advocacy, but no more eloquent than the young children who were here to tell us their stories. Today, representatives of the March of Dimes, over 400 of them, are visiting offices on Capitol Hill. And Jennifer Howse, president of the March of Dimes, has stated that SCHIP ``is the health insurance lifeline for millions of low-income children who have no other way to obtain coverage.'' Our country has put poor children first; that's called Medicaid. The poorest of the poor children in our country are able to receive health care through Medicaid. I wish you could have heard the stories of some of the parents who told us, Bethany's parents who were in the other day. The press asked them if they were afraid their family would come under attack because they were lobbying for SCHIP. They said we are already under attack, but we are proud to come forward to support this initiative. We are not proud of the fact that we are low income, they said. We are trying very hard to lift ourselves up into the middle class. We work very hard not to be on Medicaid, but to be among the working poor, it is not something that we brag about, but SCHIP is something that we need. So when the President wants to have 4 or 5 million children instead of 10 million children in his initiative, is he the one, the decider, who wants to go to that family and say, Your child is out? Bethany had heart problems from birth. She was 2 years old in July. They have been told by some people as they lobbied, The baby is better now; you don't need SCHIP anymore. Well, she does. They said, We are not just lobbying for Bethany; we are lobbying for all of the children. As far as the March of Dimes is concerned, and I am proudly wearing their pin, they deal with children with birth defects, and it might interest you to know that one of eight children in America each year is born prematurely, around half a million babies born prematurely. Many of those children, I am not saying all, but many of those children have ongoing conditions and preconditions that bar them from getting any health insurance. Those children need SCHIP. They are in the category that makes them eligible. And that category does not include people earning $83,000 a year. So while some of you may use that as an excuse not to vote for the program, I hope you know intellectually it is not a reason to vote against this initiative. There are currently no children enrolled in SCHIP with family income of 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, $83,000 for a family of four. In fact, 91.3 percent of the children enrolled in SCHIP are in families of four that make less than 200 percent of poverty. And 99.95 percent, just a hair under 100 percent of them, are in families under 300 percent of poverty. So this is a sad thing. We are asking people who are working hard and playing by the rules, they are taking care of their families. They could have stayed out of work and stayed on Medicaid, but that is not what we are encouraging people to do in our country. We are encouraging them to move on and upward. And these families have to come forward and say why they have not attained the American Dream of enough wealth to afford $1,200 a month in health insurance premiums, and that's a big order. I am so pleased, though, that with the work they have done, Easter Seals, Red Cross and all of the organizations I mentioned earlier, and the Governors and mayors, et cetera, that now 82 percent of the American people support this initiative. If I said it before, I want to say it again. And let me also say that there are some myths about SCHIP. Well, I don't think that they are myths; I think they are excuses not to vote for the bill. I mentioned one of them. Another one is about illegal aliens. Clearly, the bill states ``no Federal funding for illegal aliens.'' It says it, but it is also the law of the land. Illegal aliens do not get benefits, so don't use that as an excuse to deprive 10 million children in our country who are eligible for enrollment in SCHIP that they shouldn't get it. This has been a bipartisan effort, and some of what has been said about SCHIP is simply not true. But don't take it from me. Senator Orrin Hatch, former Chair of the Health Committee in the Senate, now the ranking member, said: ``I believe that some have given the President bad advice on this matter because I believe supporting this bipartisan compromise to provide health coverage to low-income children is the morally right thing to do. If we were truly compassionate, it seems to me, we would endorse this program.'' Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah. Senator Charles Grassley, former chairman of the Finance Committee, another committee of jurisdiction and now the ranking member said: ``The President's claims about SCHIP are flatly incorrect. The SCHIP bill is not a government takeover of health care. Screaming `socialized medicine' during a health care debate is like screaming `fire' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts.'' Senator Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa. So, my colleagues, we have a decision today to override the President's veto, which would be, in my view, the right thing to do for our children and for our country. It is not about compassion. It is about fairness. It is about fairness. And this is a bill again that has been bipartisan in its development and required enormous sacrifice from the Democrats in the House of Representatives. We had a much higher goal. This is what is achievable for the children. It should have been signed by the President. There is no reason that he has given that is consistent with the facts. And so I urge my colleagues to think about the children, to think about Bethany and think about a little boy, Zeke, who was in my office this morning. He is the ambassador of the March of Dimes for 2007. He is 8 years old, born prematurely at a pound and a half, and now going out and speaking on behalf of the needs of other children. The President is isolated in this. Don't join him in his isolation. Come forward on behalf of the children and let's truly send a signal that we are about the future. I tried to do that when I was sworn in by being surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: We are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children. There is nothing more important that we have to do in our work than make sure that our children are healthy and safe. Today we have an opportunity to do that. Let's not miss that opportunity. Let's give a vote for the children and against the President's veto.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his excellent management of this rule affording us the opportunity to bring this important legislation to the floor. I commend Chairman Reyes and Chairman Conyers for their leadership in protecting and defending the American people by putting forth the best way to collect intelligence under the law. Mr. Speaker, as we say over and over again here, and each one of us who comes to serve in this body, indeed, everyone who serves our country takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It's a thrill to take that oath of office. As we protect and defend the American people in the preamble, it says to form a more perfect Union, Mr. Jackson has been a champion on that, to provide for the common defense. In that preamble, that's a high priority for us. We have a responsibility to protect the American people; that makes everything else possible in our community and in our society. But as we protect and defend the American people, our oath of office calls upon us to protect and defend the Constitution and our civil liberties. The legislation before us today does just that. It's about protecting the American people from terrorism and other national security threats. I, for a long time, have served on the Intelligence Committee, both as a member, as the ranking member, and also ex officio as leader and now as Speaker. I believe very firmly in the role that intelligence gathering plays in protecting the American people. We want to prevent war. We want to prevent harm to our forces. Force protection is a very, very high priority for us. Protection of our forces. And we must now meet this horrible challenge of fighting terrorism in the world. It has been a challenge for some time. In order to do that, we have to have the laws in place in order to collect that intelligence under the law, and that is what this legislation does. First, it helps us defend our country against terrorism and other threats. Secondly, it protects the privacy of the American people, which is important to them and a responsibility for us. And third, this legislation restores a system of checks and balances and how we protect and defend our country and provides for rigorous oversight by Congress of this collection. In the 1970s, when the FISA law was passed, it was conceded that Congress had a role in determining how intelligence was conducted, how the executive branch conducted the collection of intelligence, the executive branch, Congress, making laws to govern that, two Houses, two branches of government. And in the FISA bill that was passed at that time, the role of the third branch of government was defined, the FISA Courts. That system of checks and balances has served our country well. With the advance of technology, additional challenges arose, and this legislation meets those challenges. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply not factual. What the Director of National Intelligence has asked for in terms of collection he has received in this legislation, and he has received it under the law. The legislation restores checks and balances in other ways. It rejects groundless claims of inherent executive authority. Under that, we might as well just crown the President king and just say he has access to any information in our country, and he may collect that outside the law. And this legislation reiterates that the law enacted by Congress, FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence. The principle of exclusivity is a very, very important principle, and it is enshrined in this legislation. The bill also sunsets by December 31, 2009, at the same time the PATRIOT Act sunsets, so the next administration and another Congress can review whether the new program appropriately meets national security and civil liberty objectives. This bill does not provide immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. As I have said many times, you can't even consider such relief unless we know what people are asking for immunity from. Congress is not a rubber stamp; we are a coequal branch of government. We have a right to know what conduct the administration wants us to immunize against. Working side by side, the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee have produced an excellent bill. It has been heralded so by those organizations whose organized purpose is to protect our civil liberties in light of our responsibility to our national security. It has been heralded by those who follow and hold as a value the privacy of the American people. It has been heralded by those who understand that one of our first responsibilities is to provide for the common defense. Our Founders understood it well, the balance that needed to be struck between security and liberty. They spoke eloquently to it in their speeches. They enshrined it in the Constitution. Let us protect the American people under the law. Please, my colleagues, support this very important legislation.