Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his outstanding leadership on this issue. He has been a relentless and persistent advocate for America's working families, for hard workers in our country who, through no fault of their own, and in large measure because of the poor economic policies of the Bush administration, have lost their job. Mr. Speaker, it is said, and it's been said directly by George Bernard Shaw, that it is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics. My colleagues have made the case for why we need this unemployment insurance, and I want to address once again, as they have, some of the statistics and see if it is the mark of truly intelligent people to respond to that. Today we have the opportunity to help 3.8 million Americans who are out of work and their families in large part because of the disastrous economic policies of the White House and the Republicans in Congress. There are 3.8 million Americans for whom 13 weeks of the unemployment insurance system, a system, as the gentleman indicated, that they have paid for, could mean not losing a home or a job or skipping meals or needed health care. Today we have that opportunity to provide that help. More statistics. In the Bush economy, gas prices have skyrocketed to $4 a gallon. One in ten Americans are at risk of losing their homes, and even more families are seeing the value of their greatest financial assets, their homes, plummet. More statistics. On Friday, we received the alarming news that since the beginning of the year, our Nation has lost more than 325,000 jobs, including 49,000 in the month of May alone. The Nation's unemployment rate has risen to 5.5 percent, the biggest monthly increase since 1986. In two decades, last Friday on that day, it jumped 0.5 percent to 5\1/2\ percent. On that same day, by the way, my colleagues, the price per barrel of oil increased by over $11 in that 1 day. In the 1990s, in 1998, the price per barrel was that exact same figure, just over $11. 1998, price per barrel of oil, $11-plus. Last Friday, price per barrel jumped, increased over $11 to over $130 per barrel. So this is the economic situation in which these families find themselves. They have been hardworking, played by the rules, paid into the system, paid into the system for occasions like this where there's a downturn in the economy, and they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. And the Republicans want to make them look like charity cases. These are strong people. They are the backbone of America. We have a responsibility to them. And if they are not moved by statistics, as George Bernard Shaw says any intelligent person should be, perhaps you would be moved by their personal stories. This extension of unemployment benefits will help people like Kathy Henry. She was laid off her job at an advertising company last August. In February, her unemployment benefits ran out. As she says, ``I must have had 100 interviews, and no one wants to hire me.'' Many times people think the people that are being interviewed for these jobs are overqualified. ``An extension of unemployment benefits would give me more time to look for a job,'' Kathy says. And Liz Waller of Missouri, she just has 3 weeks of unemployment benefits left. She said, ``Absolutely, an extension would make a big difference for me. I'm dying to get back to work.'' I'm dying to get back to work, ``but I've done interview after interview and there are just way too many job candidates out there. I just keep getting told I'm overqualified.'' There is a concern on the part of some employers that as people continue to look for work and look for jobs at lower pay, that if they hire them, then they will leave when they can find a job at higher pay with an upturn in the economy. This isn't about people sitting on their butts back home saying, goody, I'm getting an unemployment check; now I can really look my family in the eye and say I'm providing. These people want to provide for their families. To imply anything else is an insult to these millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and, in large measure, because of the Bush administration's failed economic policies. Let's think about our veterans. This legislation is especially important to our returning military veterans. A recent government report prepared for the Veterans Affairs Department found that young veterans earn less and have a harder time finding work than do civilians in the same age group. The percentage of veterans not in the labor force--because they couldn't find jobs, stopped looking for work because they couldn't find jobs, or went back to school--jumped to 23 percent in 2005 from 10 percent in the year 2000. Our veterans come home; they can't find work. Some of them need this unemployment insurance, and the Republicans are saying, ``Just say no.'' Extending unemployment benefits not only helps those who are looking for work, it stimulates the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, $1 spent generates $1.64 in new economic demand. Stimulates the economy. All Americans who work pay unemployment insurance, pay into a trust fund for a rainy day. The rainy day is here. Today, across the country and for millions of Americans, that rainy day is here. Congress should ensure that those who paid into the system for the benefits now can receive them, and we can do this by passing this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, the issue and the debate is not a partisan one. All Americans are feeling serious and deep economic pain. The people who will benefit from this are Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisans, Independents, people who aren't even interested in the political system. Yet, President Bush has issued a veto threat against this legislation, despite the fact that it will help--let's get back to our statistics--3.8 million Americans and, in fact, the entire economy. And so I get back to our friend George Bernard Shaw. ``It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.'' I thank Chairman McDermott for your important work on this subcommittee, on this legislation. I also want to commend the chairman of the full committee for being a truly intelligent man, moved by statistics, Chairman Rangel for his relentless work on this important legislation. To Mr. Levin as well and to all of the members of the committee, thank you for bringing this important legislation to the floor. The American people are waiting to see if Congress will act to help them on a matter that is relevant to their economic survival at a difficult time in their lives for money that they paid into the system. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, the Chair of the Budget Committee, for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this excellent document to the floor, a budget which will help us protect our country, grow our economy, give middle income tax cuts, and do so in a fiscally sound way. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our budget is a statement of our national values. At least it should be. Now for the first time in our New Direction Congress, last year and this year, for 2 years straight, we have put forth a budget resolution, the first time a budget resolution has been put forth in an election year by the Congress since the Republicans took over. Now the Democrats are in charge and we have had 2 years of responsible budgeting. I listened with interest to our colleagues and their views on this budget. They certainly are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I want to just quote from some of the responsible independent budget organizations, some of them conservative-leaning organizations, when it comes to their false claim about this budget increasing taxes. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says, ``The conference agreement does not raise taxes.'' The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution says very clearly, ``The budget would not raise taxes.'' Indeed, your budget, Mr. Spratt, indicates that one of your priorities is making up-front cuts in taxes for alternative minimum tax relief that ultimately would be paid for without increasing the budget deficit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says, ``Some claim that the budget plan of the conferees would constitute `the largest tax increase in history.' This claim is inaccurate. This year's budget plan does not include a tax increase. It actually calls for a $340 billion reduction in revenues.'' The problem that our friends on the Republican side have is that these tax cuts are for the middle class, not just for their friends in the upper 1 percent bracket. These tax cuts address the marriage penalty, address the 10 percent tax bracket, address the child tax credit. The middle class and those who aspire to it benefit from this budget. This is a fiscally sound budget, and for that we are all in Mr. Spratt's debt. This budget has to be balanced in terms of its spending and its priorities, and, indeed, it is a statement of our values. I would like to see anyone in this room who supports veterans say they cannot support the budget provisions in this legislation. In this bill, for our veterans it provides an additional $3.7 billion for veterans health care and services, which is why this budget has the strong support of major veterans groups. When it comes to energy, an issue of major concern to households across America, this budget provides $7.7 billion for renewable energy, energy efficiency and other energy initiatives, which is $2.7 billion more than just last year. In innovation, let's stop having these stale debates about trade or no trade. Let's educate, innovate, compete and prevail in the global marketplace. This budget provides nearly $2 billion to fully accommodate the commitments made in the America COMPETES Act, which was voted on by an overwhelming number of Republicans to give us a huge vote in the Congress and signed by the President. This is to spur innovation and invest in basic scientific innovation. Again, by setting the right priorities and making tough choices, our budget also cuts taxes again for the middle class and those aspiring to it and protects 20 million households from the alternative minimum tax. In any year, creating a budget is a difficult challenge. In an election year, it is even more challenging, because of all of the competing priorities that want to be in the budget. But this year we have a budget that is in balance in terms of its values and is in balance in terms of the track that it puts us on. Thank you, Mr. Spratt, for putting us on track, with no deficit, for the budget to be in balance by 2012. It is fully compliant with pay-as- you-go rules. It is a budget, again, of the statement of our values, fiscally responsible, pay-as-you-go. It has tremendous merit, and it should have the support of every person in this body. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, on Friday, May 23, San Francisco lost one of its extraordinary citizens with the passing of George Frederick ``Fritz'' Jewett, Jr. I sadly enter into the Record excerpts from his obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle. Mr. Jewett a Prominent San Francisco businessman, philanthropist and sailing buff whose support of the sport led to his induction into the America's Cup Hall of Fame in 2005, died in San Francisco on Friday of a cerebral hemorrhage. He was 81. Mr. Jewett had a long career in the forest products industry as a director of the Potlatch Corp. He retired as vice chairman of the board in 1999. He was also renowned in sailing circles for chairing five America's Cup Syndicated for three yacht clubs from 1973 through 2000. Mr. Jewett was known for his civic activism, generosity and gentle demeanor. Fritz's love of competition and his personal sportsmanship made him a Hall of Famer. His love of friends and kindness to them made him a world class gentleman. Mr. Jewett is survived by his wife of 54 years, Lucy; his son, George Jewett, III of Hillsborough; his daughter Betsy Jewett of Spokane; his sister, Margaret Greer of Chevy Chase, MD; and four grandchildren. He had known his wife-to-be Lucille McIntyre since childhood, and reconnected while he was working in a Tacoma sawmill. They were engaged 6 weeks later, and would have celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary in July of this year. In all of life's endeavors Fritz and Lucy were a team. Their love for each other and their family was a model to us all. They were enormously generous in their philanthropy and hospitality. They touched the lives of so many with their quiet and significant support of the arts, education, science, medicine, conservation and sports. Their interests ranged from their patronage, of the San Francisco Ballet to cheering for the San Francisco 49ers. The grace of the ballet and the competitiveness of sports came together in the beauty of sailing which they enjoyed personally and at the America's Cup level. I hope that it is a comfort to Lucy and the Jewett Family that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them. Fritz brought the same dignity, spirit and humor to dealing with his physical challenges in his last year as he did throughout his life. My husband Paul and I send our deepest sympathy to Lucy, George, III, and Betsy at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Today, a statue of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk will be unveiled at City Hall in San Francisco. It is fitting that on the occasion of his 78th birthday, San Franciscans will gather to pay tribute to Harvey Milk's life and work at City Hall, where he served San Francisco and so tragically lost his life 30 years ago. Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to any significant political office in our history. This memorial will be the first such tribute to an LGBT leader to be placed in a seat of government in the United States. Harvey Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. A year later, in one of the darkest weeks of San Francisco's history, Supervisor Milk and our beloved Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Supervisor Dan White. Harvey Milk was a San Francisco hero, a champion of human rights and symbol to the world for LGBT civil rights. His political career was dedicated to shattering the silence of gay America. He firmly believed that the only way for gays to break down homophobia was to increase their visibility and irrevocably enter the consciousness of our Nation. A popular neighborhood merchant and activist, Harvey Milk became a great progressive leader who transformed San Francisco political life and social culture for all time. He pioneered an open, participatory government accessible to all, especially those who had never before been engaged. For the first time, neighborhood and ethnic community activists and openly gay men and lesbians were appointed to positions of power and authority. He was a passionate advocate for seniors, and his populist agenda encompassed the needs of all of San Francisco's minorities. Last week's California Supreme Court decision to strike the ban on gay marriage is a testament to Harvey Milk's enduring legacy. It is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride, and one we would not have reached without the courage and dedication of Harvey Milk and many LGBT leaders after him. Harvey Milk did not live to see the immeasurable and global ramifications of his life. He continues to inspire us to strive for a society that honors his values of unlimited and equal opportunities for all our citizens. His legacy helps bring our country closer to the ideal of equality that is both our heritage and our hope.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise in support of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. I am enthusiastic about it because it will cut taxes for millions of middle-income families and grow the U.S. economy, it will invest in renewable energy technologies to create high-paying green jobs, it will make us more energy independent, and it will remove incentives in the Tax Code that encourage shipping jobs and investments overseas. I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Charlie Rangel. He has brought a bill to the floor that makes key investments in our families and our future. And I thank the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. McDermott, for his leadership and for yielding me time. This is how the bill will cut taxes. Here are seven reasons why everybody in this Congress should vote for this bill. Any one of them should be enough. First, it provides 30 million homeowners with property tax relief. Secondly, it helps 13 million children by expanding the child tax credit. Third, it benefits 11 million families through the State and local sales tax deduction. Fourth, it helps 4.5 million families better afford college with tuition deductions. Next, it saves 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses. Imagine now when our teachers go into classrooms that are not fully equipped. They have to pay for that equipment themselves. This at least says if you do that, you will get a tax deduction. It provides more than 22,000 military families with tax relief under the earned income tax credit. And it ensures U.S. competitiveness by expanding the research and development tax credit. That is how it cuts taxes. There are seven reasons right there, any one of which I think is sufficient to vote for this bill. When it comes to gas prices, Mr. Speaker, as we debate this legislation American families are paying record prices at the pump. Yesterday the cost of a barrel of oil passed $129 for the first time in history. Today I believe it went past $130. This legislation invests in the future and the ingenuity of the American people to create and deploy cutting-edge renewable technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and this is how it does that. It strengthens and extends the production tax credit which will spur the deployment of wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal and landfill gas. Next, it transitions biofuel beyond corn by creating a new tax credit to promote the production of cellulosic biofuels. Next, it expands and extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax credit and offers tax incentives for residential, solar, wind and geothermal technologies. It provides tax incentives for coal electricity plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide. It includes incentives to encourage energy efficient products, such as plug-in hybrid cars and incentives for energy conservation, both in commercial buildings and residential structures. And it creates a new category of tax credit bonds to fund local initiatives to promote the deployment of green technologies. This is a comprehensive approach, the missing part of the energy bill that we passed last year because it did not have the tax credits. Now we do. This industry can take off. We can have private sector initiatives to grow our economy, create good-paying jobs here at home, green jobs, and have the green economic revolution that is so important to our future. And this is all being done in a fiscally sound way. No new deficit spending. It is paid for. This forward-looking legislation invests in renewable energy, creates hundreds of thousands of good-paying green jobs, spurs American innovation, and cuts taxes, cuts taxes, for millions of Americans. And it does so, as I mentioned, in a fiscally responsible way. To invest in our future, this bill closes loopholes allowing corporations and executives to avoid paying certain taxes by shipping jobs and investments overseas. The New Direction Congress thinks we should focus tax benefits on creating jobs and encouraging investments here at home. Despite the strong case for rescinding taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies making record profits, opposition by the Senate Republicans to these offsets makes their inclusion untenable for the bill being debated today. But we will come back to that. Today's bill represents a concerted effort to enact a bill into law promptly, and thus relies on revenue offsets that enjoy strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Rangel and members of the Ways and Means Committee and Members of our House on both sides of the aisle who care about an energy future for America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It is a national security issue, it is an economic issue, it is an environmental and health issue, it is an energy issue, it is a moral issue for us to preserve God's beautiful creation, this planet, and to pass it on to the next generation in a responsible way. I urge my colleagues to support the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to commend you, Chairman Obey, and Mr. Murtha, for your tireless work on behalf of our men and women in uniform, and for bringing this critical legislation to the floor today. I am particularly interested in part two and three of the resolution. We're all grateful for the fact that this will be the last time we will vote on an Iraq supplemental in the House of Representatives. Again, I thank the chairman and the chairman for their important work in this regard. When the House completes its work today, we will have achieved three goals. First, we will have set a new direction in Iraq that will end this sad chapter in American history and bring our brave men and women home. That is necessary because President Bush, in his request to the Congress, insists on his failed course of action in Iraq, failed from day one; day one, when they went in and thought the war would end in one day. They're asking us to trust the same impaired judgment that took us into this war on a false premise, without the proper training and equipment for our troops, without a strategy for success or an exit strategy from Iraq. Isn't it sad that here we are, over 5 years later, over 4,000 of our precious treasure have died, tens of thousands of our men and women in uniform have been wounded, many of them permanently. Our reputation in the world has been greatly diminished, harming our ability to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and eradicate disease and alleviate poverty, and all of the other leadership roles we have played in the past. It has come at a tremendous cost in dollars to American taxpayers, trillions of dollars, which have taken us deeply into debt, which has taken us into recession. More on that later. But think of the opportunity cost of that money, what we could have done to invest in education and health care. We will pay any price any time to protect the American people, but not to follow the whim of the impaired judgment of this Bush administration. Only when we finally end this war can we rebuild our military. And that is another cost of this war, diminishing the capacity of our military to meet challenges and threats to our security wherever they may occur. When we do that, we will be able to refocus our attention on the real war on terror. So this action that we are proposing today, a new direction in Iraq that will end the war, will rebuild our military, refocus on the real war on terror, and restore our reputation in the world. That is why this legislation directs that a redeployment begin within 30 days of this bill's enactment, and with the goal of being completed by December 2009, be completed by then. The new President will have the flexibility to bring our troops home safely, honorably, responsibly, and soon. Essential to restoring our reputation in the world is to regain our moral authority, which has been lost in this war. That is why under the conditions of this legislation torture is banned. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, for your leadership on this subject. This condition has passed this House overwhelmingly in the defense appropriation bill. It will also ban permanent bases in Iraq. This condition has passed this House overwhelmingly on any number of occasions, over 300 votes. Insist that the Iraqis pay their fair share for reconstruction. This is a relatively new condition, but a necessary one predicated on the fact that the Iraqis are amassing a budget surplus while we're going deeply in debt to pay for their reconstruction. We're saying if we put up a dollar, you put up a dollar, dollar for dollar to participate in their reconstruction. They have to be at least as interested in rebuilding Iraq as we are, especially when we are doing it to the neglect of our own reconstruction needs in the United States. This legislation will also ensure that our military pays only its fair share for fuel. Do you know that in Iraq, we pay almost 2\1/2\ times as much for gasoline, our military does, than the Iraqi people do? The Iraqi Government subsidizes the Iraqi people and makes our military pay more than double. And that's a new condition. The conditions here calling for the cleaning up of waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and reviewing of contracting passed by suspension. Over two-thirds of the House voted for this legislation that is contained in this condition. And require that any agreements with Iraq that commit U.S. forces for the protection of the Iraqi Government from an external force or from a civil war internally must be approved by the Congress of the United States. Under the guise of a Status of Forces Agreement, the administration is committing the United States to a treaty without congressional approval. I remind the President of article I. Read the Constitution, Mr. President. I believe that these provisions should receive bipartisan support. They have every time they have come to the floor. The only two new ones are about the cost of fuel and the dollar for dollar. What we will also accomplish in this bill is to honor our responsibility to our men and women in uniform. I have been to the theater, to the war area, five or six times in the course of this military action, sometimes with Mr. Murtha, with Mr. Skelton, with Mr. Lantos, with our committee Chairs of jurisdiction. And when we meet the young people there, they always say the same thing: ``What is going to happen to me when I go home?'' ``What is going to happen to me when I go home?'' Some of the soldiers were telling me about their lives at home, and one of them was very quiet, and I said to him, ``What did you do before you came to Iraq?'' He said, ``I was in high school, ma'am.'' He was in high school. He was a teenager with a gun over his shoulder. If that's necessary for our country's security, it has to happen. But this young man, a teenager, fighting that fight without any thought about what was going to happen to him when he came home. Well, what we would like to say in the final amendment here is that when you come home, young man, we will thank you for your service to our country by sending you to college. That's what the student veterans have asked us for. That is what we have done for veterans in the past. That is what we owe these young people now. And in doing so, we will be doing a great thing not only for them but for our country because their education will be part of the economic recovery of our country. In the security of our country, they have led the way. In the economic recovery of our country, they will be in the lead. Third in this bill, we will begin to address America's domestic priorities. We will address the deep economic pain facing many families. As I mentioned, this war, President Bush's war, which is enabled by the complicity of the Republicans in Congress, has taken us deeply into debt, which has taken us deeply into recession, and now has taken our economy to a place where we have record numbers of people unemployed. Today 7.6 million people are unemployed. Of these, 1.4 million Americans, jobless Americans, have been looking for work for over 6 months. And our economy has lost 260,000 jobs this year so far alone. These people need our help as they continue to seek work in this difficult economy. Thank you, Mr. Obey, for including the unemployment insurance for America's workers in this legislation. The contrast, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is clear. President Bush and the Republicans in Congress insist on a war without end in Iraq. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans across the country, but, sadly, too few Republicans in this House, are insisting on a New Direction. A New Direction that strengthens America's military by ending the war in Iraq. A New Direction that strengthens America's economy by investing in our veterans and our workers here at home. We have said over and over again that one way to support our troops is to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. We can begin building that future worthy of their sacrifice by saying ``thank you'' to them and, when they come home, to send them to college. I urge my colleagues to support the second and the third amendments that are being presented today. And in closing, I want to, as always, salute our men and women in uniform for their service, their sacrifice, their courage, their patriotism, and with our commitment, again, to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of our Agriculture Committee for his important work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. I also want to commend Mr. Goodlatte for his leadership as well, so we can come to the floor with bipartisan legislation that will help lower food prices, invest in energy independence, support conservation, and recognize the importance of specialty crops. I want to commend Mr. Kind also for his leadership. It is very important for us to reform the farm subsidy programs in our country. I think where we have a disagreement is I think this bill is a good first step in that direction. I don't think we will ever see another bill that will look this way. And when we come to the place where our situation is addressed again in a bipartisan way on the next farm bill, I think your work will be repaid. But I hope, Mr. Kind, that you take some satisfaction in the fact that from your leadership and advocacy, this farm bill is moving in the right direction. I too am not satisfied that it does enough in terms of farm subsidies, but I want to talk about what it does do. And what it does do is much better because of the leadership of Mr. Goodlatte, our distinguished chairman Mr. Peterson, the work of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who just did a phenomenal job. Chairman Rangel did a phenomenal job on his aspect of the bill. And Mr. Pomeroy, who serves on both the Ways and Means Committee and the Agriculture Committee, was a wonderful bridge in terms of these initiatives. I also commend Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for her leadership, and all of our colleagues who are here today, including Mr. Holden who is number two on the Ag Committee. All across America, we are proud of the work that has been done. In California, we are proud of the work of Dennis Cardoza, a member of the Ag Committee, representing some new ideas about fresh fruits and vegetables and how they should be part of this initiative. We on the coast, to my colleague Mr. Scott, we wanted to see some initiatives about fresh fruits and vegetables and specialty crops, and they are contained in here. And I commend Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her incredible work on the nutrition piece of this. As part of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Baca was a leader in terms of the nutrition piece, and Congresswoman DeLauro as Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture was an important voice and strong leader and advocate for increasing the nutrition initiatives in this legislation. If there was one reason for Members to vote for this bill, it would be to support the nutrition piece of it, but there are other reasons as well. I talked about how it could lower grocery prices. Time magazine recently had this on its Web site, four ways the farm bill could lower grocery bills. First with the disaster relief, a $3.8 billion program for farmers hit by drought and flooding could speed up compensation, allowing them to bring crops to market faster. Cuts in ethanol subsidies. Demand for corn-based ethanol has increased corn prices. This bill cuts the producers' tax credit and creates a subsidy for more efficient cellulosic ethanol made from stalks, grass, and wood rather than from corn. Food stamps. Payments to those on assistance will be more responsive to inflation. The minimum monthly benefit will increase from $10, where it has been since 1977, and may I say, probably since they put this out. The final bill has strong support for the food pantries, food banks throughout America. Now if you go to a food bank, you will see a sign that says you can only come one time a month to pick up food because the shelves are bare in those food pantries. This bill will go a long way to filling those shelves. So for emergency food assistance, this program would supply food banks and pantries and could add up to $100 million more in funding per year as more Americans affected by the sluggish economy visit its distribution centers. Some people in our country are concerned as our economy is in a downturn, they are concerned about losing their jobs. Many people are concerned about losing their homes; but almost everyone is concerned about losing his or her living standard. The purchasing power of middle-income families has been reduced while costs have gone up for necessities like gasoline and groceries and health care and education. The issue of gasoline and groceries are addressed somewhat, one more than the other, in this legislation. In terms of energy, high energy costs are a contributing factor to our high food prices, which is why the Food and Energy Security Act, which this is, will help reduce gas prices and ensure that America's family farmers fuel America's energy independence. Think of this. We are talking about energy independence, and with this legislation we take a step for America's farmers to fuel America's energy independence, following up on the work we did last year in the energy bill. It makes a $1 billion investment in energy independence. In addition to that, it takes a critical step in transitioning from biofuels, from corn as I mentioned, and creates a new tax credit that will provide a $400 million investment in cellulosic biofuels. These efforts will ensure that we send our energy dollars to the Midwest instead of to the Middle East. In terms of conservation, the bill recognizes that those who work the land, America's farmers and ranchers, are great stewards of the land. The farm bill improves access to and funding for initiatives that take environmentally sensitive lands out of production. It encourages environmentally friendly practices on working lands, and it invests $5.4 billion to preserve farm and ranchland, improve our air quality, our water quality, and enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitats on working lands. Others have mentioned the issue of specialty crops. For the first time, the farm bill makes an historic investment in specialty crops, especially important to my State of California, and as I have said, those of us living on the coast as well as in the rest of America. It provides $1.3 billion in mandatory spending. This investment was made possible by the leadership of Congressman Dennis Cardoza of California who has worked to ensure that the producers who account for more than half of all crop value in the United States are now represented in our farm policy. Producers who provide one-half of all crop value in the United States are now represented in our farm bill. Specifically this bill invested $365 million in specialty crop block grants, $230 million to create a new dedicated research program for specialty crops, $377 million to create a new initiative for early detection prevention and eradication of emerging pest and disease. I know that Mr. Thompson of California has a special interest in this aspect of the legislation. The bill takes a critical step toward reforming farm programs, not enough I agree, Mr. Kind, by eliminating payments to the ultra-rich and closing loopholes that for decades have allowed some to evade farm- payment limits. This is the most significant reform in farm policy in more than 30 years. This Food and Energy Security Act will ensure that future farm bills will never again look like this. Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson and many others who have made this historic investment in energy independence and nutrition assistance, this bill's effects will also be felt far from farm country. As George Washington our first President whom we visit every day when we come to the Chamber said, ``I know of no pursuit in which more real and important services can be rendered to any country than by improving its agriculture.'' Well, we were an agrarian society then, but there is still a great deal of truth in that statement today. With this legislation we will help families facing high food prices; fuel our Nation's energy needs with American-made, renewable energy; and be better stewards of the land and protect our environment. In addition to all of that, we will have fresh snacks, fresh fruit and vegetable snacks for our children in the schools. I urge my colleagues to support this new direction in American farm policy. I urge an ``aye'' vote. Again, I salute Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte for their leadership. It is wonderful for us to have this bipartisanship on the floor today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. I would like to thank Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her outstanding leadership on this issue. For 13 years, she has worked to pass this bill protect Americans from genetic discrimination. She's both the powerful chair of the Rules Committee, and a microbiologist, so she knows what she is talking about. The sequencing of the human genetic code is one of the great scientific accomplishments in the history of the world. It has the potential to treat and prevent disease. It is evidence of science's almost-biblical power to heal. But with this scientific breakthrough comes a responsibility to protect Americans from the misuse of their genetic information. Today, the Congress will begin to fulfill that responsibility by passing this legislation. This legislation prevents health insurers from adverse coverage or pricing decisions based on a person's genetic predisposition toward a disease. It ensures an employer cannot make adverse employment decisions based on what is in a person's genetic code. It also makes it illegal for an insurer or employer to request or demand a gene test. Because of this legislation, Americans will be free to undergo genetic testing for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's, without fearing for their job or health insurance. There is life-saving information in those tests. And for scientists, there is information that allows for huge breakthroughs. This legislation is supported by the vast majority of the American people, 93 percent of whom do not want employers to have access to their genetic information. This is such good policy that this legislation is supported by more than 500 organizations, including a broad coalition of civil rights and religious organizations. Health advocacy groups ranging from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the March of Dimes to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation have endorsed it. In the Congress, it has broad bipartisan support. It also has the support of the President. Let us not wait another day to pass this legislation so it can move to the President's desk for his signature and become law.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I am pleased to join Mr. Boehner and other cosponsors of this legislation, and thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor, and for leading us in our strong friendship with the State of Israel. I thank Mr. Berman for following so ably in the footsteps of Mr. Lantos as he follows the tradition of Chairman Lantos whose loss we feel every day. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, families around the world, including my own grandchildren, gathered around the Seder table to retell the Biblical story of freedom and hope that is Passover. The closing words of the Passover haggadah evoke the age-old yearning of the Jewish people to return to Zion. Today, in Congress, we mark the fulfillment of those aspirations in observing the founding of the modern State of Israel. By recognizing the 60th anniversary of Israel, we reaffirm the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel. Again I thank Chairman Berman and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in giving us this opportunity today. I am pleased to join Republican Leader Boehner as lead cosponsors of this legislation, as I am pleased to join him in leading a delegation to Israel in a few weeks to be part of the 60th anniversary observance. Mr. Speaker, the creation of the State of Israel, as Mr. Berman said so eloquently, stands out as one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century and as a beacon of hope to the world. President Truman's role in recognizing the new state just 11 minutes after its proclamation is a source of pride for all Americans. It is also a symbol of the strength of the friendship between our two countries. I note that this congressional recognition is a little earlier than a month before Israel's independence day, but this allows us to get ready and to have a few weeks of festivities to bring in the May celebration. In this body we sometimes have political differences, but today and every day we speak with one voice united with Israel. As we support Israel, we recognize that the national security of Israel is in our national interest. A week ago, Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, came to my office. Gilad was captured from his army base in Israel near the Gaza border on June 25, 2006. For almost 2 years, Gilad has been held in captivity. Our thoughts are with him and his family, as well as with all of the other missing Israeli soldiers, such as Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. We will continue to work for their release from captivity. Mr. Speaker, every leader from the region who comes into my office, or just other people that I find worthy of knowing about this, I show the dog tags of Eldad, Ehud and Gilad as a constant reminder in the Speaker's Office of our commitment to them and to their freedom. In America's partnership with Israel, we have both given support and we have drawn strength. We share a common history, nations founded to be beacons of democracy, forged by pioneers, and fulfilled by immigrants in search of a better tomorrow. We also share a common cause, a safe and secure Israel, living in peace with her neighbors. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to speak with one voice and support this resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. In doing so, we not only commend Israel, we also bring luster to this House by associating ourselves with that great State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Florida for her generosity in allowing me, the Speaker, to speak out of turn.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his kind words of recognition to the Pelosi amendment. And I thank him for his tremendous leadership on debt forgiveness, not only now, but for a number of years. I remember watching the master at work to see Mr. Frank work with the then Clinton administration in the year 2000 when we were trying to get the millennium debt forgiveness. He, along with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, have really made a tremendous difference in all this. And they have talked about some of the differences made in the countries, Congresswoman Waters did earlier. God bless us in this House to be able to serve with Congressman Bachus. He has just been such a wonderful leader in the House; his value-based policies, sensitive to the needs of people in the world, and how that relates to the security of our country, and how this is important from the standpoint of security and compassion, but it makes good, practical economic sense as well. You're a wonderful leader in this regard, and it is an honor to call you colleague, Spencer Bachus, distinguished ranking member of the committee. This has been a bipartisan initiative from the start. I appreciate the letter that was sent out by Chairman Waters and Spencer Bachus, Barney Frank, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Judy Biggert, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, as well as Carolyn Maloney from that committee, advocating for this Jubilee Act to be passed today and spelling out exactly what it does as Mr. Bachus did so very clearly just a moment ago. And so with all the recognition to those on the committee and those who have worked on this issue, thank you for bringing us to this moment on this day. And I was very pleased and accept Congresswoman Waters' acknowledgment of our insisting that it be brought up today because today is the day we welcomed the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, to Washington, D.C. Many of us have just returned from the White House, where we were very proud of the welcoming ceremony presided over by President Bush and Mrs. Bush to welcome Pope Benedict and to be stirred by both of their words, the words of our President and also of the Holy Father. In his remarks, the Holy Father talked about truth and justice and freedom. He talked about respecting the dignity and worth of every person, regarding each other as brothers and sisters, all God's children. He made a beautiful and inspiring speech. And really his speech was reflected in the remarks that Spencer Bachus made here in that same regard of what our responsibilities are to our brothers and sisters. Today is the Holy Father's birthday. And as the President said, he is spending his birthday with friends. And in friendship, we bring this Jubilee Act to the floor today. This is not the first resolution to welcome His Holiness to America. Last week, we all voted in strong support in a bipartisan way for Congressman McCotter's resolution of welcome to the Holy Father. Yesterday, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren had legislation on the floor relating to religious workers' visas and their ability to work in the United States, which is an issue of importance to His Holiness. And now today, this very important resolution. The former Holy Father, Pope Paul II, said, ``If you want peace, work for justice.'' There has always been a connection here. With this debt forgiveness, it enables countries to do many more things to promote justice in their countries, whether it's the eradication of disease, the alleviation of poverty, eliminating some of the factors that contribute to the fury of despair that leads to violence that makes the world less safe. Again, this was a high priority, this debt forgiveness, for John Paul II when he was Pope, and he led the Cardinals in America Conference of Bishops to advocate for this. But it has not just been a Catholic initiative, it has been an interfaith initiative in the country, in the world, and certainly in this Congress. So it's very exciting, on this Holy Father's birthday, as we welcome him to America, we do so in a way, as Mr. Bachus said, that just gives the authority to negotiate for these improvements in the forgiveness of debt so that we can, again, do what is right for respecting the spark of divinity that exists in every person in the world, that we can try to bring some justice to it, we, who have so much, for those who are also God's children need our help, and give them hope. People say to me, where is hope? I say, hope; it's right where it's always been. Hope sits right there comfortably between faith and charity. We are people of faith who believe in the goodness of people. And we have faith that the charity that that will evoke or bring forth will help honor the hope that people have in the world. So this is a great occasion, again, to welcome His Holiness, to stand up for all the people in the world, and to do what he called upon us to do this morning, he called upon us, he said, ``we must have the courage.'' Today, I hope that we have a unanimous bipartisan show of courage to do what is right. Again, I thank Mr. Frank, Mr. Bachus and Congresswoman Waters for their relentlessness on this issue and the opportunity that they give us to give hope today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her for her very distinguished leadership of the Rules Committee and for bringing this very important rule to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is one I wish could have been avoided, and I think it is important to put it in context because I have heard our colleagues talk about the merits of the bill or talk about any precedent on rules, and I have heard them talk about different things. But I think it is important to know what brought us here today. On Monday, I received a call from the President of the United States, always an honor to receive a call from the President. This is after months of our going back and forth with members of the cabinet and the rest about when and if they would send up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The President informed me that he would be sending the bill over the next day. I recommended against it. I said, Mr. President, you shouldn't send it for two reasons. If you send it and we take it up, it will lose. Now you think it is very important to pass a Colombia free trade agreement, and in the Congress we have people who share your view. And we have others who share your view that we should pass it as soon as we address the concerns of America's working people, and others who will never be for it. But let's talk about what the possibilities are for passing it, and those possibilities are greatly diminished if you send that bill to the Congress under these circumstances. Apart from the fact that it would be a breach of protocol, and let's just talk about that. A successful trade agenda depends on joint partnership between the Congress and the administration, as was the case recently in the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Had the administration followed the established protocol of congressional consultation relating to the submission of any free trade agreement, we would not have to take this action today. By his actions on Tuesday, the President abandoned the traditions of consultation that have governed past agreement. In fact, the action the House takes today is more in keeping with the spirit of the rules than the White House's move to force a vote. But, as I said, just from a practical standpoint, Mr. President, you simply don't have the votes. And if we are to try to arrive at a place where the concerns of the American people are addressed, we need more time to do that. I also said what I have said many times to the President. If we are going to be successful in passing a trade agreement, we have to first tell the Americans people that we have a positive economic agenda that addresses their aspirations, addresses their concerns about their economic security. This bill's been around for a while, and matters have only gotten worse in our economy. The former Chair of the Fed has said we're in the throes of a recession. The current Chair of the Federal Reserve last week, the end of last week, testified to Congress that there's a possible recession. Many people, I mean, the joblessness numbers of last week, again pointed to a steeper downturn in our economy.

Ms. PELOSI. No. You control your time. With all due respect to the gentleman, I'll use mine. The fact is, as I said to the President, many people in America now are concerned about their jobs. They're concerned about losing their homes. Most people won't, but most people are concerned about losing their living standard. When the cost of groceries and gasoline and the cost of health care and education and other staples continues to go up, and the purchasing power of the income that people have is either stagnant or going down, they have concerns about their economic security. So let's have a timetable for the American people. Let's have a timetable on our consideration of a trade bill that addresses the concerns and is compatible with the needs of America's working families. That is, I think, the only fair thing to do. The President ignored those concerns and sent the bill over. I pledged to this body, as Speaker of the House, that at the appropriate time, if many of these concerns are addressed in terms of America's working families, that we can take up legislation for such a trade agreement. Some have concerns about the content of the agreement. Others have concerns about the treatment of labor organizers in Colombia, and it's a real concern, and one admitted to by the administration and the Colombian Government. There are differences of opinion as to how this is changing, but let's see how we can work together to make that change.

Ms. PELOSI. Having control of the time, I will retain the control of the time, Mr. Speaker. The important point here is, whether it's the substance of the bill, whether it's the conditions in Colombia, they are to be, obviously, major considerations. But what we're saying to the President, we can't do much about some of these things. We certainly can address the provisions in the bill. But I'm not here to talk about that now. What we can do something about, what we haven't done enough about is to send a positive economic agenda forth. And these are not difficult. Most of what we're talking to the President about are part of what has passed this Congress in mostly an overwhelming bipartisan way. Whether we're talking about rebuilding the infrastructure of America, whether we're talking about investments in an innovation agenda, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number 1, and that innovation begins in the classroom, and we have to have a strong commitment to the education of our people, whether we're talking about tax credits for our energy bill which we passed here, which would immediately create jobs. No, if we don't do it we will lose jobs that exist now. Same thing with infrastructure. If we don't make those investments, our projects will have to discontinue. But many more are ready. Dirt is ready to fly. The projects are in the pipeline. There is a way to create good-paying jobs right here in America. We've passed the legislation. The vehicles are there for us to do it. And at the same time, we have to address the concerns of those who have lost their jobs, whether it's unemployment insurance or summer jobs program for their children or other initiatives. So this is nothing new. And, in fact, the whole idea that we were going into recession is nothing new to most families across America. It took a while for the President and his administration to accept that fact, and, when they did, we could talk. And when they did, we could talk, we could work together, as Mr. Boehner and I did, with the Secretary of the Treasury, to put together a stimulus package that had strong bipartisan support, and, as the President has said, has not gone into effect yet. And when it does, I know it will inject demand into the economy, create jobs and, I think, stimulate the economy. But since we did that, matters have only become worse, necessitating the need for us to do more. And we certainly should do more for our economy. And we certainly should do more for our economy before we pass another trade agreement. It's all possible in the days that are before us. But instead of having the President's timetable, we have the timetable of the House of Representatives, we have a timetable for America's working families. And nothing that we are doing here now should be misconstrued in terms of our attitude toward Colombia. Colombia is our friend, is a neighbor in the hemisphere. The relationship between Colombia and the United States is an important one. We have concerns about workers in Colombia, and we respect the leadership of President Uribe. And as I said to the Ambassador yesterday, I hope you will convey that message to the President, and when you do, I hope you will also tell him we congratulate him on his excellent representation in the United States in ambassador service here. So this isn't about ending anything. It's about having a timetable that respects the concerns, the aspirations, the challenges faced by the American people. We are the people's House. Their timetable should be our timetable. I urge our colleagues to support the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the committee, for their leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. It isn't without a tear in the eye that we bring this to the floor and remember our colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos, and how important this resolution would have been to him. Twenty years ago when I was a new Member of Congress, Tom invited some of us to a meeting that I will never forget. It was with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. At that time he presented to us his proposal for autonomy for Tibet. That is over 20 years ago he has been preaching autonomy, and it is on that basis that we wanted him to have the opportunity to have full negotiations with the Chinese Government. They had said if he doesn't reject the idea of independence, that cannot happen. Well, he rejected independence 20 years ago, much to the dismay of those who want independence. But, in any event, Tom Lantos opened the door for many of us to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Twenty years later, in the Capitol of the United States, under Tom's leadership and of that Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, we were able to present to His Holiness the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that this body can bestow. I am proud to say that President Bush stood there side-by-side with His Holiness presenting our Congressional Gold Medal to him. No President before had been so courageous, and I appreciate and am proud that President Bush did that. Following that, we talked about taking a trip to India to talk about global warming, that our Energy Independence and Global Warming Task Force, which Mr. Markey and Mr. Sensenbrenner, who spoke so eloquently earlier, were in the lead on. When we planned the trip, we had accepted His Holiness' invitation to visit him in Dharamsala, without any thought that it would be at a controversial time. As fate would have it, we made our plans in December and January. When we got there in the middle of March, it was following the crackdown in Tibet of the peaceful demonstrators in Lhasa and in other parts of Tibet by the Chinese Government. It was stunning really to see the reaction of the Chinese to the simple observance of the 49th anniversary of the Dalai Lama being forced out of Tibet by the Chinese. As the monks demonstrated and protested, the Chinese government cracked down. While we were there, it was interesting to hear that the Government of China was saying that His Holiness was the instigator of violence in China, that he had the ``heart of a jackal'' and all kind of animal references. We all love our animals, but they were not appropriate to His Holiness. We all know His Holiness to be the personification of nonviolence in the world, a bridge builder for peace and human understanding, as we said in our presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to him. So we thought it must be our fate, it must be our karma, that we would be in Dharamsala at that time. As was indicated by some of our colleagues, Mr. Inslee mentioned that some monks had traveled for 5 days over Himalayas to Dharamsala to tell us about the treatment they had received. Some of the people we met with, Mr. Smith, had been in prison for many years in China. One woman who was in her eighties had been in prison for over 25 years. We heard of the torture that was exacted upon them as recently as a matter of days before we were there. So the torture that you described that you heard about in your committee continues to this day, and we very tearfully received that information from the prisoners. But the point is that in Tibet you are arrested and repressed for what you believe; not even for acting upon your beliefs, but for what you believe, and that is something that flies in the face of everything we stand for as a country. That is why I was so pleased that the President stood there and showed bipartisan spirit, Democrats and Republicans coming together, as Mr. Smith mentioned. We have worked on this issue for many years and in a very bipartisan way in terms of China. Another place where China has influence that Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf have been leaders has been in the Sudan. But for the Chinese's absolute insistence that they will not sanction the Sudan at the U.N., we could perhaps have an improvement in the human rights situation and the political situation in the Sudan. Many of us took a trip, many Members have been there, I led a delegation there with Mr. Clyburn to Darfur a couple of years ago and we saw firsthand the genocide that was going on there. It was horrible to see. We went to several camps. In one camp, 100,000 refugees were there. We saw the little children. The tiny ones really still had some brightness in their eyes. The older ones, they had seen too much. In this camp, in the evening when it would be cool, if the father went out to get firewood, he would be killed. If the mother went out, she could be raped. In any event, the children could be kidnapped. They had been displaced from their villages with compliance of the Government of Sudan. All we need is strong international leadership to end that situation. China stands in the way. When we are talking about Tibet and when we are talking about the Olympics and we are talking about Tibet, we have to remember Burma as well and the house arrest also for all these many years. We have to remember what is happening in Darfur. I was reading in the paper the other day as the torch was going through Paris that one of the marchers, the carriers of the torch said that what was happening with the protesters was very unpleasant. I thought, you think that's unpleasant? Maybe you should be in the sub-human conditions that the refugees are in Darfur. If you think that's unpleasant, maybe you should be in a prison in Tibet for your faith and His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. You think that's unpleasant? Maybe you could still be in prison from the Tiananmen Square massacre. Some people are still in prison from that time. Mr. Smith knows well the fight we had at the time because shortly after, a couple of years after Tiananmen, we were still fighting for the release of the prisoners of Tiananmen. We had about a $5 billion a year trade deficit. We thought that that would give us so much leverage with the Chinese Government that surely if we threatened the most-favored nation status, as it was called then, that they would yield and release these prisoners because it meant $5 billion a year to them. Well, we didn't win. We didn't prevail in that situation. As I say, it was a Republican President and a Democratic President. We didn't get any better policy from either of them when it came to China. They told us that granting most-favored nation status, they changed the name to permanent normal trade relations because it sounded better, would, in fact, improve the political situation in China and improve our trade relationship with China. When these people are saying it's unpleasant, I think it's unpleasant to think that a $5 billion a year trade deficit is now $5 billion a week, $5 billion a week. That is a quarter of a trillion dollars a year trade deficit with China. Has it improved our trade relationship? I don't think so. Has it improved the human rights situation in China? I don't think so. Somewhere along the way we lost our way. We said at the time, some of us, if you choose to ride this tiger that is China, only China will decide when you can get off. China won the Olympics. Some of us supported resolutions in opposition to that, but they won the Olympics. I don't support a boycott of the Olympics. I think our athletes who have trained should be able to go there and compete. I think it should be treated as a sports event. Any time it tries to rise to the occasion of harmony, one world, one dream, a unifying factor, that is where it falls short, because the Chinese cannot on the one hand take the political upside of the credibility given to them at any welcoming ceremony and refuse to hear the other side of the political view that they are unworthy of making that claim. As we speak tonight as we are gathered here in this Chamber, in my City of San Francisco human rights activists are preparing for the torch to come through our city tomorrow, a city very committed to human rights. I was very proud that yesterday they were able to display a ``One World, One Dream: Free Tibet'' banner across the Golden Gate Bridge. It's just frightening to think of how they were able to accomplish it, but they got their message across with, probably in my view, the most beautiful backdrop in the world for all the world to see. Tomorrow, as the torch goes through the city, people will voice their views on it. But, still tonight, Desmond Tutu is leading a prayer vigil in San Francisco in protest of what is happening with that torch going through. Probably the most insulting of all, though, is that China insists that the torch go through Tibet, that it go to Mount Everest and through Tibet on its way back to Beijing. That's the biggest insult, I think, of all. The world should not allow that to happen. What's right about that? When I was in Dharamsala, I had the privilege of addressing the crowd gathered in the square. I said at the time that the situation in Tibet challenges the conscience of the world. Indeed, the situation in Darfur challenges the conscience of the world, two places where China can change, make a difference. I also said that if we, the freedom-loving people throughout the world do not stand up for human rights in China and Tibet, then we lose all moral authority to talk about it any other place in the world. It is many years of activism on this subject, and lots of documentation, but, as Mr. Smith mentioned, we know so many of the people firsthand, such as Harry Wu, who had been imprisoned. Why this is important tonight is because what the Chinese did, the most excruciating form of torture that an oppressor can exact on a political prisoner is to say to him or her nobody even knows you are here. They don't even care about you anymore. Society has passed this issue by. It's no longer important. Your family is out there suffering, you are here forgotten, but the world does not remember you. Well, we are here tonight to say that the world does, a continuation of the work that Mr. Smith has referenced and others have referenced tonight about our calling to the attention of the world the names, the actual names of people who have been imprisoned for their beliefs, their religious beliefs, their political beliefs. This the resolution is very simple, and when we vote on it tomorrow, I hope we have an overwhelming vote. What it says to the Chinese Government, as they prepare for the Olympics in harmony, ``One World, One Dream: Free Tibet,'' is that they end the crackdown in Tibet, that they enter into substantive dialogue directly with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, that they allow independent monitors, journalists and others into Tibet and they also allow medical personnel. As was mentioned, people who have been beaten by the Chinese cannot receive medical assistance and they need that life-saving attention. That's what we are talking about here. As for the accusation that that jackal, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the instigator of violence in Tibet, started all of this, His Holiness called for and our delegation in Dharamsala associated ourselves with his call which was for an independent outside investigation as to how that all started. If they are going to accuse him, then they must be prepared to have an investigation to prove their point or to be proven wrong. When we were there, I just want to close by saying, because it was very moving for us, when we got off the airplane and we were driving to Dharamsala for miles and miles and miles and miles, and when we got to Dharamsala to the center of town, we were greeted by many Tibetans flying American flags. We take the pledge in the morning, and any time we see the flag, it is an emotional experience for us. But to see these people who have had to struggle so much for freedom pay homage to our flag was quite a remarkable thing. Here is one sign, which was my particular favorite. It said, ``Thank you for everything you have done for us so far.'' But all the American flags, the Tibetans flags, and, just again, it was a forest of flags there. Mr. Holt referenced the children, when we went to the children's school, thousands of adorable children, many of them separated from their families, because that's the only way they could be raised in a Tibetan culture which is now restrained. Here are these children, they drew, they had thousands of these. I brought many of them home, an American flag on one side and on the other side a Tibetan flag, ``Free Tibet, Free Tibet.'' It goes on, ``Long live His Holiness the Dalai Lama.'' ``Long live the friendship between the United States and Tibet,'' a friendship that began when Franklin Roosevelt sent His Holiness, when he was a very little boy, a watch. That watch had the rising of the sun, the months of the year, the phases of the moon, and it did tell time too. It was a very special fit, a gold watch. His Holiness has said that he took that watch with him when he left Tibet, imagine, a piece of America in that flight to freedom. It is our wish that under the provisions of this legislation and the voices being heard all over the world now that those negotiations will take place between the Chinese Government and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I, like many, have asked about the opening ceremonies. You don't want to boycott the Olympics, what about the opening ceremonies? I think we should, since the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, has put that on the table, it should stay there. Our President should hold back any decision about going to those opening ceremonies until he sees what progress could be made, what leverage we could use to have those negotiations take place so that before too long and while His Holiness is still in good health he can return to Tibet and, indeed, the Tibetan people in their autonomous state of Tibet can be free. I am very proud of this resolution. I couldn't be prouder of all the statements that were made this evening with all the passion and interest and history that went with it. I think it is a tribute to His Holiness, and I hope the vote tomorrow will be unequivocal about that. I am certain it will. I also they think that it is a tribute to our friend, Tom Lantos, who had been so faithful to this cause. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and recognize his extraordinary leadership on issues that relate to the alleviation of poverty and eradication of disease, which really are a national security interest for our country. They are about the health and well- being, the respect we command throughout the world. I want to commend Chairman Berman. I think this is probably the first piece of legislation to come out of the committee under your leadership as chairman, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking member of the committee, for their leadership in bringing a bipartisan, strong initiative to the floor. This initiative is a continuation of the work that President Bush has as a priority in the eradication of AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. For those of us who have been involved in these issues over the years, whether on the committees of authorization, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee has been on the authorizing committee, and now on the appropriating committee; Congresswoman Waters, in many ways in the House; and you, Madam Chairman, all of us know that for our country to be healthy, for the eradication of these diseases to take place, we must have a global approach to it. Disease knows no borders and boundaries. So, again, while it is the compassionate thing to do, it is in our self-interest to do as well. The distinguished chair, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and I, and others, just had the opportunity to visit a PEPFAR site in India at the Salvation Army, where they were distributing these drugs through a regimen, an organized regimen related to hygiene and the rest to people with HIV and AIDS. We can tell you from firsthand experience; I visited these sites in south Africa, this trip was to India, that wherever we go, there is great appreciation for what our country is doing, and President Bush's leadership on this subject. I am so pleased that the bill is named for Congressman Chairman Lantos, our friend who left us earlier this year, and Congressman Hyde before that, because they were the original authors of the first historic President's emergency plan for AIDS relief legislation in 2003. That landmark bill authorized $15 billion for 5 years. Working together with the Bush administration and Appropriations Committee, we succeeded in providing lifesaving antiretroviral treatment to almost 1.5 million people, supporting care for nearly 6.7 million people, including more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children; and supporting prevention of more than 150,000 infected infants. We are talking about AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Now we must take the next step in fighting AIDS in the poorest countries of the world. The legislation before us will move us from the emergency phase to the sustainability phase in fighting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. My colleagues have presented the provisions of the bill to you, so I will just submit mine for the Record, Madam Chairman, and just say in closing that the leadership against HIV/AIDS is our compact with developing nations across the globe. It says that America stands with them in this fight, that our commitment will not waver, and shows them America's true face of passion. Since the AIDS epidemic began, 20 million men, women, and children have died from the disease. Twenty million. Forty million around the globe are HIV positive. That is what we know. We don't even know of those who have not come forth to be tested. Each and every day, another 6,000 people become infected with HIV. In addition, the number of orphans, vulnerable children with sick parents and adolescents at risk with HIV continues to grow, with an estimated 19 million needing assistance by 2010. There is a moral imperative to combat this epidemic. If we have these drugs distributed in the manner in which they are under the President's program, this PEPFAR, then people will come forward to be tested, then we will have better success with our prevention initiatives. So it's all related. Care causes people to say there is a reason to be tested, and knowing the consequences of the disease contributes to the prevention effort. Few crises have called out for more sustained constructive American leadership. This legislation before us makes that commitment. I urge our colleagues to support it. Once again, I salute you, Mr. Payne, for your leadership in so many ways that relate to, again, the eradication of disease and the alleviation of poverty and the strength of America related to that and how we are viewed in the world and how that all contributes to a healthier America. All of these, if we don't, we will have a fury of despair that springs from a lack of hope in the world that contributes to violence and, again, takes us back to the security of our country. So for that security, and out of compassion, I urge my colleagues to support this initiative, which is President's Bush's initiative, named for our colleagues, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde, put forth by the chair, Mr. Berman, and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen in a strong bipartisan way, and we salute that, and advocated by Mr. Payne of New Jersey. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank Mr. Conyers, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding and thank Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. They know, as does each and every one of us, that our primary responsibility is to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, we take an oath of office, as has been referenced, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. In the preamble it states that one of our primary responsibilities is to provide for the common defense. We take those responsibilities seriously, and I don't take seriously any statements by some in this body that any person here is abdicating that responsibility. All of us understand also the role that intelligence plays. In protecting our troops, force protection, that used to be our primary responsibility and now, of course, Homeland Security is part of that. None of us would send our troops into harm's way without the intelligence to perform their mission and keep them safe, although some have been willing to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way without the equipment they need to keep them safe, but we don't make any accusations against them that they are not patriotic Americans who don't want to protect the American people. Chairman Conyers and Chairman Reyes have already pointed out in some detail this legislation will meet our responsibility to protect America while also protecting our precious civil liberties. The President has said that our legislation will not make America safe. The President is wrong, and I think he knows it. He knows that our legislation contains within it the principles that were suggested by the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, early on, as to what is needed to protect our people in terms of intelligence. The administration demands that Congress grant immunity to companies for activities about which the President wants only a small number of Members of Congress, and no member of the judicial branch, deciding on any currently filed lawsuits to know anything about. The bill before us acknowledges that immunity for the companies may already exist under current law and allows that determination to be decided by a judge with due protection for classified information, not by hundreds of people who really do not have the facts. Why should the administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity. Well, there are at least three explanations. First, the President knows that it's the administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in statute is what has prevented immunity from being conveyed. That is one possibility. They simply didn't do it right. Second, the administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong, or public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law. None of these alternatives is attractive, but they clearly demonstrate why the administration's insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies. It has always been about protecting the administration. As important as the issue of immunity might be, it is chiefly important to the administration and the telecommunications companies as they look back to events that occurred as many as 6 years ago. What is truly important to the security of our country and the protections of our Constitution going forward are the amendments made to the FISA bill in title I in this bill that is on the floor today, the so-called surveillance title of the bill. The bill contains three of the essential provisions of the bill passed by the House in November and, in doing so, explicitly rejects the heart of the President's warrantless surveillance program. Those provisions are: One, the reinstatement that FISA remains the exclusive means to authorize electronic surveillance. The President likes to think he has inherent authority to surveil, to collect on anybody, and this bill restates that FISA is the exclusive authority. This was a point conceded to in 1978 when the Congress of the United States established the FISA law, passed the FISA law, which was signed by the President of the United States, thereby his recognition of Congress's ability to make the courts, the third branch of government, the exclusive authority for the collection of intelligence in the United States. That is exclusivity. Second, except in emergencies, FISA Court approval must take place before surveillance begins, but there are exceptions in case of emergency. Third, a refusal to follow the Senate in excluding, and this is very important because people are talking about the Senate bill as though it is some great thing. This is very important: A refusal to follow the Senate in excluding from the definition of electronic surveillance activities historically considered within the definition. In other words, if they don't want the law to apply to a particular activity, they will just say it doesn't fall into this bill. If the administration's change in the definition was accepted, FISA- derived information, including U.S. person information, could be data- mined with fewer protections than are currently in place under FISA. This is very important to each and every person in America. The President insists that we pass the Senate bill as is. Yet even that legislation's chief author, Chairman Rockefeller, agrees that many of the House provisions improve the Senate bill. This legislation before us today will ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect the American people. And the President knows it. This legislation will ensure that we protect what it means to be an American, our precious civil rights and civil liberties. Both goals are essential and both are achieved in this bill. I urge its passage.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. May I begin by thanking the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for his masterly work in bringing this budget before us. It is fiscally sound. It is a responsible blueprint to build our economy, moving us forward and strengthening our national security. The Democratic budget, which is the budget for our country, puts the future first. It is about future generations, and it moves us to surplus by 2012. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the fiscal soundness of this budget. While being fiscally sound, the budget is also a plan again to get our country moving. It is a budget for the future by putting family budgets first, helping make affordable everything from energy to groceries to college education, helping families avoid foreclosures, and lowering, lowering, taxes. It provides for us to have middle-income tax cuts. This is about America's families and their economic security. It invests in the future by investing in renewable energy to make America more energy independent and secure and to create green jobs. It is a blueprint for a green revolution in our country. It creates a new generation of innovators by investing in math, science, engineering and technology, to keep good-paying jobs here in America. In total, we provide $7.1 billion more than last year for education and job training. It rebuilds America's crumbling infrastructure, which again is an engine of job creation, and makes health care more affordable for families and veterans. VA health care will receive a $3.6 billion increase to care for the men and women who have defended America. I read this list of provisions in the bill to show that this budget is really a statement of our values. It shows to the American people that we indeed care about them and the budget that we write is relevant to their lives. These are priorities that leading economic experts have said will put our Nation on solid economic footing. Our budget is also a plan for a stronger America that begins to restore military readiness and better protect Americans against terrorism. Many of you know that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is also the second-highest ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, so he brings to this budget process a full knowledge of our national security needs, a full commitment to our military and their families, and dedication to our veterans which has been unsurpassed. In this bill in terms of national security, ours is a plan to make Americans safer and stands in stark contrast to the President's priorities in Iraq. That misguided war has badly strained our military, distracted us from the fight against terrorism, and damaged our reputation in the world. In fact, the funds committed to that war, some say $3 trillion, huge amounts of money, not only are an opportunity cost for investments here at home in our own education and reconstruction and military readiness, but the deep debt that we are incurring because of the war in Iraq is damaging to our economy. We cannot continue to borrow to pay for the war in Iraq and not see it have an impact on our economy, and that is in addition to the rising cost of oil prices that are related to the war in Iraq as well. We begin in our national security to reestablish America's strength by rebuilding our military, investing in equipment and training that our military requires, and making caring for our troops, veterans, and military families a top priority. Our plan stands in stark contrast to the President's priorities and the Republican budget, which would undermine health care for seniors and working families by cutting Medicare and Medicaid over half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years and charge veterans and military retirees more than $18 billion in new fees over 5 years. Our budget does not do that. The Republican budget puts the burden of additional fees on our veterans. The Republican budget eliminates essential funding for State and local law enforcement and cuts EPA grants that would help protect our planet and our health. On inauguration day 2009, President Bush will move out of the White House. But, unfortunately, his fiscal legacy will remain unless we can reverse that. The Bush administration turned a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, I heard our distinguished majority leader talking about this earlier, into a $3.2 trillion deficit. That is historic, that is a historic fiscal turnaround of epic proportions, nearly a $10 trillion swing in fiscal soundness. The President leaves a record of breathtaking fiscal recklessness. Budgets are more than just accounting documents. Budgets, our Federal budget, I believe, should be a statement of our national values. What we believe in our Nation should be reflected in the allocation of our resources, in our budget. With this budget, the New Direction Congress and under the leadership of Chairman Spratt is saying that we value families and their economic future, we will fight to insure their hard work is rewarded, and that the American Dream is renewed. With this statement of our values, we are saying that we do value our valiant men and women in uniform. We will insist that they receive the tools and training they need to perform their mission, and that when they return home, they will come to high quality health care. And we were saying in this statement that we value our children. We will invest in their education, their health care, and their future, and do this without leaving them a legacy of debt. My colleagues, we must make clear that the American values are the values of this House. We should have a statement of the values of the American people in the budget that we put forth, and we do today, to invest in our children's health and education and strengthening families, to provide for the national security of our country by rebuilding our military and respecting our responsibility to our veterans, by investing in the future and innovation and new energy technologies and the education that goes with it. We must make clear that this is a budget plan for a stronger America, for stronger families, for a stronger economy, and a stronger military. I urge my colleagues to support with great pride the budget put forth by Mr. Spratt in the Budget Committee this evening.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen for yielding and for their support of this important resolution. I thank Mr. Duncan for his leadership and for supporting this resolution. Mr. DeFazio, of course, has been a champion on these issues for a long time. And in terms of building the infrastructure of America, Mr. Blumenauer has, through his relentless advocacy for building America's infrastructure in an environmentally sound way, has added to the vision of how we want to do this. I learned about the Gallatin Report, which you talked about, Mr. DeFazio, from Mr. Blumenauer. Imagine 200 years ago, around the time of the Lewis and Clark expeditions and the Louisiana Purchase, a great President realized that for commerce to flow and for people to move and our country to flourish, we needed to build the infrastructure of our country; and Mr. DeFazio described the immensity of that project by Albert Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury. Secretary Gallatin said at the time his vision of roads and canals to unite our young Nation could not be left to individual exertion. Contrary to popular thinking at the time, Gallatin had the great foresight to see the long-term benefits of infrastructure investments far outweighed the cost. And because of that, public capital, not just private resources, were necessary. From the beginning of our country, our Founders and the leaders of our country were entrepreneurs. They were risk-takers. They believed in public-private partnerships, and that is what this was. At the beginning of the 19th century, it is important I think to note, there were barely 1,000 miles of canals in America. Sixty years later, in part because of the vision of Albert Gallatin, more than 4,200 miles of canals, ranging west to Illinois, north to Michigan, and south to Texas, facilitated trade and mobility across our country. The Erie Canal, the transcontinental railway, and America's model of planning and investment stand today as legacies of Albert Gallatin's vision. A statue of Albert Gallatin stands today at the entrance to the Treasury Department building in recognition of his many accomplishments. It is in the tradition of Albert Gallatin that 100 years later, again my teacher and mentor on the history of this vision for America, Mr. Blumenauer, informs me that Theodore Roosevelt launched a similar commitment by convening a White House conference on conservation to preserve America's natural beauty. That led to the creation of the National Park Service and helped a growing America remain a great America and continue on to be an even greater America. In 2008, 100 years later, 200 years after Thomas Jefferson and Secretary Gallatin, 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt, in keeping with the tradition of visionary leaders like them, we are prepared to invest in America's strength. We again must invest in our infrastructure to do so. Today that means green solutions such as mass transit and modern solutions such as expanding broadband across America. Whether we're talking about roads or bridges or mass transit, whether we're talking about canals and waterways, sewage and water facilities, whether we're talking about broadband or we're talking about the grid to transmit electricity, whether it be talking about schools, an investment in infrastructure that serves the needs of our children and their education, all of this infrastructure needs a major, major infusion of capital, and we want to do that in a fiscally sound way. Just as they did 200 years ago, these infrastructure investments offer our Nation job-creating opportunities to invigorate, reinvigorate America's economies. Anything we're talking about in terms of infrastructure means good-paying jobs right here at home in America. It's not only about creating those jobs; it's about growing our economy. Today, because of the leadership of Mr. Oberstar, the distinguished Chair of the committee, Mr. DeFazio, who opened the debate here, Mr. Duncan, thank you as well, and the leadership of Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Congress has the opportunity to honor the genius of the Gallatin plan, as the resolution says, establishing a more perfect Union. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Secretary Albert Gallatin who, with his plan, encouraged the prosperity and the national unity of America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his leadership on protecting the American people. In addition to being Chair of the Intelligence Committee, he has served for many years on the Armed Services Committee. He brings to his position on Intelligence the commitment that we all have, to protecting the American people, to building a strong military second to none to do that, to protect the American people. He knows that force protection is one of the main priorities of intelligence, to protect our forces, and when they are in harm's way, to make sure they have the intelligence to prevail. Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress has made strengthening national security and improving America's intelligence capabilities a top priority. It is our major responsibility, to protect the American people. Our very first piece of legislation, H.R. 1, took the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations off the shelf, as they had been in the Republican Congress, and put them into law to better protect the American people. We then began our efforts to strengthen America's military, the readiness of which has been greatly depleted by the President's failed Iraq policy. To restore our military strength, we have expanded the size of the Army and Marine Corps, passed legislation insisting that only fully mission-capable forces be deployed, and funded essential equipment, including armored Humvees. Mr. Speaker, America's security depends on the strength of our military as we all know, but also the quality of information gathered and analysis provided by the 16 intelligence agencies that make up our Nation's intelligence community. As someone who has served on the House Intelligence Committee now as a member and ex officio for 16 years, longer than anyone in the Congress, I understand that policymakers in Congress and in the executive branch must be able to rely on accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence. That is why this intelligence authorization bill invests in human intelligence, counterterrorism operations, and analysis. It is a critical step in protecting our Nation. And the President should have signed it into law. Regrettably, President Bush vetoed these critical investments in our intelligence capabilities because this legislation extended the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture to intelligence community personnel. The prohibition on torture that the President vetoed protected our values, protected American military and diplomatic personnel, and protected Americans by ensuring accurate intelligence. Our Nation is on a stronger ground ethically and morally when our practices for holding and interrogating captives are consistent with the Geneva Conventions, when we do not torture. We all have our views here about intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination; and, again, much of the focus is on force protection. So I look to the words of those who have served in the military for their view on this subject. In the words of Retired RADM Donald Guter, a former Navy Judge Advocate General, he says: ``There is no disconnect between human rights and national security. They are synergistic. One doesn't work without the other for very long.'' Failing to legally prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh torture techniques also risks the safety of our soldiers and other Americans serving overseas. In a letter to the congressional Intelligence Committee chairmen, 30 retired generals and admirals, including General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, the command that oversees our military activities in the Iraq region, the Middle East and greater Middle East area, those 30 retired generals and admirals, looking again to the voices of those who have led in the military, stated: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans.'' Many military officials and intelligence professionals have also stated that torture is ineffective; it is unlikely to produce the kind of timely and reliable information needed to disrupt terrorist plots. I want to reinforce the message of my colleague, the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, in quoting the words of General David Petraeus. As Mr. Hoyer just stated, but I think it bears repeating, the words of General David Petraeus: ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. That would be wrong,'' General Petraeus said. He went on: ``Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they are frequently neither useful nor necessary.'' These leading military men and women and those of us who support this legislation's ban on torture believe that we can and we must protect America while preserving our country's deeply held principles. In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might but also on our moral authority. Today, we can begin to reassert that moral authority by overriding the President's veto. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio, Congresswoman Sutton, for yielding and for managing this very challenging bill this evening with such dignity. This is an important time for us, my colleagues, because we are sending a message to the American people as to who we are. We know each other to be honorable individuals who come here with the best motivation. Our title ``Representative'' is our job description, to represent the people of our districts. We gain respect for each other as we work on issues across the aisle, across the region, across generations in every way, representing the beautiful diversity of our country. Unfortunately, the American people do not share our view of ourselves here in the Congress and our reputation has received tarnish. Part of that tarnish came from a culture of corruption that preceded the Democratic takeover of this Congress. When I became Speaker of the House, I said it was necessary to drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C. so that the people will understand that we are here for the people's interest and not the special interests. And so this legislation that is before us today represents what I believe is necessary for us to convey to the American people what we owe them: our best effort to have this Congress live up to the highest ethical standard. And I know of what I speak because I had the responsibility to serve on the Ethics Committee for 6 years when we took up some terrible issues. The bank scandal, remember that? Many of you weren't here yet, but it was a horrible time. The Newt Gingrich case, it was a horrible time. During that time, as divided as we were, Democrat and Republican, I would pray at night that something exculpatory would come along, something that would say we don't need to continue this case because there is evidence that these charges are not true. It is hard, it is hard to pass judgment on your colleagues. It is very difficult. And I say that in the most bipartisan way, and we worked together on that committee in a very bipartisan way during some very difficult times. After 6 years, I thought my service was over; and I had to spend another year on what Mr. Hoyer referenced as the Livingston-Cardin Committee to rewrite the rules. We thought we did a really good job; but, obviously, a review of them some years later said we have to do more. But that has been the story of ethics in the Congress. Since the Ethics Committee was first created in 1967, the House has set increasingly higher standards of conduct to guide Members because public service is a public trust. As I said, in recent years that trust has been eroded, and we have come here to drain the swamp. Just last year on the first day of the Congress, the New Direction Congress, the House implemented new and sweeping changes to the gift and travel restrictions. Last September we passed the historic Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, historic lobbying and ethics reform that is now the law of the land. Today, the New Direction Congress will, for the first time, open the ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which will make this institution more accountable to the people who sent us here, the American people. I welcome their assistance. I want to say a word about Mr. Capuano. I want to thank him for his service to our country. In recognizing him, I want to recognize the participation of all of the members, Democrats and Republicans, on the task force, for their service to this House; and I believe there was a good-faith effort made to keep this process as bipartisan as possible. And that is the best you can do. If at the end of the day there is not a willingness to make the reforms necessary to restore the confidence of the American people in the Congress of the United States, then you cannot be held back because some do not want to act. Mr. Capuano, I believe, led this effort in a way that was bipartisan and sensitive to the institution's history and traditions. And I must say that I received, early on, compliments from his co-Chair, the Republican co-Chair of the committee, about working with Mr. Capuano. He said something like, I am sorry you appointed him because he is very good to work with. That was supposed to be a joke. In any event, I would like to extend special thanks to him for undertaking this very difficult task, not only in trying to make something that is important work, but also to convince our colleagues that this is the route to take. Now as I said, I served on the committee under the old rules and I helped write the new rules, and there is always a time to revisit all of it. And there will be a time to revisit these rules as well. A special thanks to my friend, Mr. David Hobson, for his work on the task force and for his many years of distinguished service in the Congress. We will miss his thoughtful deliberations and his contributions to our country. Thank you, David Hobson. As I mentioned, I served on the Ethics Committee during some very, very difficult times; and I want to extend my deep respect and appreciation to those who serve on this committee now and who have served past and present. Until you have undergone that, until you have undergone that, you cannot really understand how difficult it is. And how happy you are when your term of office ends. But I want to salute them, all of them, past and present, for their important work. I have deep respect for what Mr. Capuano, striving to work in a bipartisan way, has tried to achieve. Adopting the Capuano Task Force recommendations will provide the public and the House with the assurance that credible, credible allegations of wrongdoing will be addressed by the Ethics Committee in a timely fashion. I emphasize the word ``credible'' because I have no doubt that the main target of this, and who do you think the main target of any outside groups to this group will be? You're looking at her. You are looking at her. But I am willing to take that risk because I also trust, yes, I also trust, my polite colleagues, I also trust that this group will rid itself of frivolous, baseless complaints and send a message to those who would file repeated frivolous complaints that is their price to pay to do this. I consider this a protection. It will bring an additional measure of transparency to the ethics enforcement process. It creates this transparency, I think it is important to note, without compromising the House's constitutional prerogatives to discipline its Members without interfering with the work of the Ethics Committee and without altering the substantive rules governing the conduct of the committee's deliberations. I fully realize that bringing non-Members to this enforcement mechanism is not only a step forward; it is a departure. It is a departure from the traditions of the House. To those who have those concerns, I pledge that I will work closely with my friend, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, to jointly appoint the members of this new Office of Congressional Ethics, fair men and women who understand the importance of nonpartisan behavior and the compelling need to act fairly to protect the interests of the public, the House, and especially the Members. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I pledge that the House leadership, and I know I heard, listened with great interest to what Mr. Hoyer had to say about this, and thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for your extraordinary leadership on making Congress more accountable and live up to a high ethical standard. Our leadership will closely monitor the work of the new Office of Congressional Ethics and continually review all reasonable proposals intended to guarantee the highest ethical conduct and a more transparent and effective ethics process. Whether they relate to the new panel or the Ethics Committee itself, if additional changes are required, we will propose them. And since I mentioned Mr. Hoyer's name, I want to associate myself with one of the remarks he made. I thought it was 30 days. Mr. Hoyer said 45 days. But in a very short period of time, according to the proposal that the Republicans are putting forth, in a very short period of time if the Ethics Committee had not disposed of those charges, they would go to the Justice Department. They would go to the Justice Department. Well, the Ethics Committee is about the rules of the House, about conducting ourselves in a way that brings honor to the House. Many of those issues are not matters for the Justice Department. The Justice Department knows when its jurisdiction should weigh in. This is about the facts, the rules of the House, and sometimes the law of the land. It's not about hearsay, rumor, suspicion, I thought so, somebody told me. It's about the facts, the rules and the law of the land. That is all that matters. That is all that matters. I think that this evening this Congress has an opportunity to send a message to the American people, and as we do, each and every one of us does as well. Our votes will speak for themselves. We are willing to take a chance to make a vote on something we might have written differently. And I don't know one bill I've ever voted for that I wouldn't have, something you might have written differently, but something that can strive to remove the doubt that is in the minds of the American people about the integrity of this body. I hope that you will all join in voting for this. It is worthy of your support. I know that, with my vote, I will be able to say I did everything I could, respecting the work of those who undertook this for practically 1 year to come up with a proposal that was fair, that was effective, and that helped us drain the swamp and say to our bosses, the people who sent us here, we honor you with our service, and we pledge to you that we will always serve in a Congress that upholds the highest ethical standard. This is an important vote. I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye.'' And I thank Mr. Capuano once again for his extraordinary leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership in bringing the rule to the floor, which will enable us to debate legislation that is very important to many people in America. I thank Mr. Pallone for his leadership on the committee of jurisdiction, a House subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, and I thank Mr. Hastings as well for the opportunity to debate this important issue. This is a very special day in the Congress of the United States. We are all very proud of our work, but there are some days that really stand out as historic, days that represent breakthroughs for America's families. Today we are debating an issue that is relevant to the lives of so many people in our country. And we owe a great debt of gratitude to two of our colleagues, Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and Congressman Ramstad of Minnesota, for their great knowledge of the issue of mental illness and addiction, for their political astuteness of the political process here, and for their generosity of spirit to share their personal experience with us, to use their knowledge of issues relating to mental illness and addiction to benefit so many people in our country. It is painful, I know, and therefore very courageous of them to do so. And simply said, without their leadership, we would not have this opportunity today. So I am pleased to salute the leadership of Congressman Kennedy and Congressman Ramstad. With this legislation, they have given hope to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation also because illness of the brain must be treated just like illness anywhere else in the body. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act is a comprehensive bill to help end discrimination against those who seek treatment for mental illness. There is no shame in mental illness. The great shame would be if Congress did not take action to ensure that individuals with mental health illnesses and addictions are given the attention, treatment, and resources they need to lead a healthy life. This is an issue of national significance. Did you know, and I found the figure startling, every year mental illness results in 1.3 billion lost days of work or school; 1.3 billion days. That adds up to more lost productivity for mental illness than arthritis, stroke, heart attack, and cancer combined. Combined. Yet bipartisan and independent research shows that there is no significant cost to insuring mental illness like any other medical disease. This legislation will be especially relevant for our returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who later become employed in the private sector. This will be potentially life-saving for those brave men and women who served in the National Guard and Reserves but who don't receive VA care for their entire lifetime. Mr. Speaker, to help remove the stigma against mental illness, for the millions suffering from mental illness and addiction, and because it is the right thing for our Nation, I urge my colleagues to support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. It is legislation that is long overdue. It gives hope to millions of people in our country and their families. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and honor the leadership, the courage, the generosity of spirit of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad in making this day possible for us.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his very generous remarks, and for his tremendous leadership. Once again, he is providing an opportunity for this Congress to come down on the side of America's families instead of a special interest. Once again, he has come down at a place that talks about energy independence and security for our country. One year ago, actually a little longer, in January of 2007, Mr. Rangel brought to the floor legislation similar to this. What it did was to repeal the subsidies for Big Oil and to use the funds for research into renewable energy resources and incentives, tax incentives for that purpose. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly. It again passed as part of our bipartisan energy bill, but it did not survive the Senate because the President threatened to veto the bill if these subsidies to Big Oil were repealed. Imagine that. And so the energy bill, as much of a triumph as it was by having new CAFE standards for the first time in 32 years in the bill, did not have this very important other part, which would be the tax incentive for renewable energy resources. Again, I thank Chairman Rangel for his persistence and for bringing this legislation to the floor now to give us this very special opportunity. When Mr. Rangel first brought the bill to the floor last January, since then the price of gasoline at the pump has gone up 75 cents; 75 cents since we first took up this legislation. Imagine what that means to a household income. It is 17 cents, the price at the pump has increased 17 cents just in the past 2 weeks. Just yesterday, oil prices reached another new record at more than $101 per barrel. This is at a time when oil companies are making record profits. Listen to this, my colleagues. Last year, ExxonMobil earned $40.6 billion in profit; $40.6 billion in profit. The largest corporate profit in American history. And yet, the administration refuses to repeal billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil. This bill repeals those subsidies and invests in clean renewable energy that will put us on a path toward energy security and energy independence in a fiscally responsible way, by repealing subsidies to Big Oil, only to Big Oil, already making record profits. With the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act that we are considering today, we have the opportunity to invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and grow our economy, creating new jobs, lower energy costs, strengthen national security and reduce global warming. This legislation, and it is very important because there are so many people across the country who are being innovators, who are being disrupters, who are making change, and this change centering around energy is very, very important, and this legislation is vital to them. This legislation strengthens and extends the production tax credit which will spur deployment of wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal, and landfill gas. It extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax credit and offers tax incentives for residential solar, wind, and geothermal technologies. It creates a new production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol and extends the biodiesel production tax credit. It expands the tax credit for gas stations that install alternative fuel pumps, such as the E85 pumps. It includes tax incentives to promote greater efficiency for homes and businesses and creates a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. It creates a new category of tax credit bonds to fund local initiatives to promote the deployment of green technologies. I know this has been said before. I reiterate this because this is very, very important and represents real change for our country. This bill helps create broadly based prosperity with an $18 billion investment in the future. It will spur the production of clean renewable energy resources and provide business with the certainty necessary to make long-term plans to build viable and sustaining markets for these technologies. This is all about answers in the marketplace. It will ensure that we keep the jobs that were created with the renewable tax credits and create hundreds of thousands more, the next generation of good-paying, green collar jobs that will be right here in America. Because this legislation is vital for a greener and more prosperous future, it is supported by a broad coalition from business, environmental, and labor communities, from corporations such as Home Depot and Dow Chemical Company, to the Sierra Club, to the United Steelworkers and the National Farmers Union. I have a long list which I will submit for the Record, corporate, labor, Florida Power & Light Company. The list goes on and on. MMA Renewable Ventures, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, National Association of Realtors, National Electrical Manufacturers, Dupont, Earth Justice, all on the same page. The list goes on and on and on. This Congress has already taken action to send our Nation in a new direction of energy independence, as I mentioned, by increasing fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years. That was bipartisan legislation signed into law by the President. What is missing are these tax incentives that the distinguished chairman, Mr. Rangel, is bringing to the floor today. Energy independence is an economic issue in terms of budgets for America's families and creating new green jobs. It is an urgent national security issue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is an environmental and health issue to reduce global warming and protect the health of our children, and it is a moral issue to care for our planet. We work closely with the evangelical community on these issues because they believe, as do I, that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it. I urge my colleagues to support the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and, in doing so, take the next step for a green economy, green jobs, and a green future. February 26, 2008. Dear Representative: As a coalition of businesses, environmental groups, investors, labor, nongovernmental organizations, public health organizations, and utilities we urge you to vote yes on the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 5351). The bill would extend federal tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that have expired or will expire at the end of this year. These incentives must be extended immediately to avoid significant harm to the developing clean energy industries in the United States. The technologies produced by these industries play a vital role in reducing global warming pollution, creating new high-wage jobs in our country, and saving consumers and businesses money on their energy bills. H.R. 5351 would extend tax incentives for renewable energy production, energy efficiency in commercial buildings, investment in solar electric systems, use of efficient home heating and cooling equipment, production of efficient home appliances, efficiency retrofits to existing homes, and consumer purchases of energy efficient products. The incentives in H.R. 5351 would remain effective for multiple years, which is essential for the development of the clean energy technology industries. Congress has historically extended the clean energy incentives in two-year increments, which creates a boom-bust cycle for the technologies covered by the incentives. This cycle undermines the efficient development of the clean energy technology industries into mature industries. Most of the incentives in H.R. 5351 have either expired or will expire at the end of this year. It is critical for the sustained development of the clean energy technology industries that these incentives be continued. A disruption of the incentives would lead to layoffs and a decrease in much needed private capital flowing to these industries. According to a recent study by Navigant Consulting, allowing the renewable energy incentives to expire would lead to about 116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar industries from now until the end of 2009. Although H.R. 5351 was introduced without an extension of the efficient new home tax credit and certain critical changes to the energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives, we look forward to working with you to incorporate the efficient new home credit and these enhancements into the bill later in the legislative process. America is on the cusp of a new, clean energy economy. The clean energy tax incentives in H.R. 5351 would help our country make the transition to this economy--an economy powered by low-carbon technologies that help solve global warming, reduce energy prices for consumers and create new high-wage jobs. We urge you to vote yes on H.R. 5351. Sincerely, Abengoa Solar; Akeena Solar; Alliance to Save Energy; Ameresco; American Institute of Architects; American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE); American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); American Rivers; American Wind Energy Association; Applied Materials, Inc.; Apricus Inc.; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE); Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM); Audubon; Ausra, Inc.; Ballard Power Systems; Best Buy Co., Inc.; BrightSource Energy; Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International. Business Council for Sustainable Energy; California Energy Commission; California Solar Energy Industries Association (CALSEIA); CCIM Institute; Climate Solutions; Conenergy; Constellation Energy; The Dow Chemical Company; DuPont; Earthjustice; Energy Conversion Devices; Energy Innovations, Inc.; Environment America; Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI); Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC); EPV Solar; Exelon Corporation; Florida Power & Light Company; Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL); Friends of the Earth; Fuel Cell Energy. Great River Energy; Greenpeace; GridPoint; The Home Depot, Inc.; Hydrogenics; Institute of Real Estate Management; Insulating Concrete Form Association; International Council of Shopping Centers; Johnson Matthey; Lowe's Companies, Inc.; Macy's Inc.; Millennium Cell, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.; North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA); MMA Renewable Ventures, LLC; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP); National Association of REALTORS; National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). National Small Business Association; National Tribal Environmental Council; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; New Voice of Business; Northeast Public Power Association; Oerlikon; Owens Corning; PG&E Corporation; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA); Plug Power, Inc.; PPG Industries; PPM Energy, Inc.; Public Citizen; Q-Cells AG; REgrid Power; The Real Estate Roundtable; ReliOn; Retail Industry Leaders Association. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD); Safeway, Inc.; SANYO Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation; SCHOTT Solar, Inc.; Schuco USA LP; Sharp Solar; Sierra Club; SkyFuel Inc.; Solar Energy Industries Association; Solar Integrated; Solar Millennium LLC; Solar Power, Inc.; Solar World; SOLEC-Solar Energy Corporation; Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Spire Solar, Inc.; SunEdison; SunPower Corporation; Suntech America, Inc.; Target Corporation. Trane; Trinasolar; Union of Concerned Scientists; United Solar Ovonic; USA Biomass; US Fuel Cell Council; The United Steelworkers (USW); United Technologies Corporation; The Vote Solar Initiative; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC); Western Renewables Group; Whirlpool Corporation; Whole Foods Market, Inc.; Xcel Energy Company; Yahoo! Inc.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, the Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding. Today is a very sad day for us for more than one reason. One reason is, though, the matter that is before us. I had hoped, frankly, that this day would never have come, that the respectful negotiations that should take place between article I, the legislative branch, and article II, the executive branch, would have yielded the information that is necessary for Congress to make its decisions. I thank Chairman Conyers for his distinguished lifetime leadership of protecting the Constitution of the United States. We all take that oath of office, every single one of us who serves. Indeed, every person who serves in any civic capacity in our country does so. Today, we are honoring our oath of office with this resolution that is before us. Again, I rise in sadness, not in confrontation. This is not a conflict that the Congress has sought. In fact, as the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has indicated, the committee has repeatedly sought to avoid confrontation, repeatedly making requests that have been ignored or rejected by the White House on completely unacceptable terms. The Judiciary Committee, indeed the Congress, is clearly entitled to this information. It involves neither national security information nor communications with the President. The President has no grounds to assert executive privilege. On the other hand, Congress has the responsibility of oversight of the executive branch. I know that Members on both sides of the aisle take that responsibility very seriously. Oversight is an institutional obligation to ensure against abuse of power, in this case the politicizing of the Department of Justice. Subpoena authority is a vital tool for that oversight. Today, we seek to require the Department of Justice to bring contempt motions against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. When our resolution passes, we hope the administration will realize that this House of Representatives, this Congress, is serious about our constitutional role of oversight and will reach a settlement with us over the documents and testimony at issue. I still hold out the hope that they will cooperate. But if the administration fails to do so, and if it orders the Department of Justice not to file contempt proceedings, we will then, through this resolution, have the power ourselves to go to Federal court and seek civil enforcement of our subpoenas. The resolution before us today should not be a partisan issue. It should not be. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Former Congressman Mickey Edwards, who once served in the Republican leadership, has said that the enforcement of the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorney matter is about defending Congress, not a Democratic or a Republican Congress, but the people's Congress, as a separate, independent, and completely equal branch of government. The subject of the Judiciary Committee's investigation involves serious and credible allegations that Federal law enforcement was politicized. Political manipulation of law enforcement undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system. Congress must find out what happened not just in terms of those who were fired but also whether improper criteria were used to retain the remaining U.S. Attorneys. We must have the information in order to protect against political manipulation of law enforcement, and it must be provided in terms consistent with our constitutional obligations. The so-called White House offer refused to permit even a transcript of any interviews and to permit questions on discussions and required the committee to promise in advance not to seek further information. This is beyond arrogance; this is hubris taken to the ultimate degree. As former Congressman Edwards, again I remind, a former member of the Republican leadership in the House, said, ``No Congress, indeed, no lawyer, would ever agree to such an outrageous demand.'' Madam Speaker, we must continue in our efforts to restore our Nation's fundamental system of checks and balances. This Congress and future Congresses must have the ability to conduct meaningful oversight. It is the hallmark of our constitutional democracy that has served us well for more than two centuries. Thank you, again, Chairman Conyers, for your leadership, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the subcommittee that dealt with this issue, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, for the important work of the Rules Committee on all of this. To the new Members of Congress, on this issue of article I led by John Yarmuth, article I, protecting the prerogatives of the Congress of the United States, we thank our new Members for their leadership honoring their oath of office. And Brad Miller, an expert on the subject in the Congress, has been a tremendous resource to us as well. Let us uphold our oath of office by voting for this resolution, my colleagues. Let us restore the rule of law. Let us act to protect and defend our constitution by ensuring appropriate congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for the formal notification of the Congress that he presented earlier to the House of Representatives, and thank him for bringing us this opportunity to express our sadness over the passing of our colleague, Tom Lantos. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, yesterday morning when I received the very sad news of Chairman Lantos's passing, that call was followed very quickly by a call from the President of the United States expressing to me as Speaker, but through me to each and every one of you, his sadness over Tom's passing and his words of praise for Tom Lantos's leadership. I told the President how appreciative I knew we would all be of his kind words and that I would convey them to this House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, you know that the House, not only the House, the Congress, the country, has lost one of its most talented leaders, and the world, indeed the world, has lost one of its greatest champions for human rights with the passing of Chairman Tom Lantos. He was a statesman, he was a gentleman, and he will be deeply missed. As the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress, Tom Lantos devoted his public life to shining a bright light on the dark corners of oppression. From his earliest days in the House, when he founded with Congressman Jon Porter the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, to his final days as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he used his powerful voice to stir the consciousness of world leaders and the public alike. Because he had lost his mother and so much of his family in the Holocaust, his wife, Annette, his two daughters, Annette and Katrina, his grandchildren and great grandchildren were the center of his universe. Madam Speaker, I told some of our colleagues earlier that Tom and Annette were a team in every way. Whether it was establishing the Human Rights Caucus or working together for the benefit of his district and our country, they were a team. And all who knew Tom knew how devoted he was to his family and to Annette, whom he adored. They worked as a team, bringing great intellect, experience, and compassion to their outstanding work in public service. Annette was alone after the Holocaust as well, and when they married, they had two daughters, Annette and Katrina, who produced this wonderful family of 18 grandchildren. Two daughters, 18 grandchildren. They said to their parents, you lost your families in the Holocaust. We are bringing to you a new family. And how proud Tom was for all of that. Having lived the worst evil known to mankind, Tom Lantos translated his experience into a lifetime commitment to the fight against anti- Semitism, for Holocaust education, and commitment to the State of Israel. Tom Lantos was not only a champion of human rights. He was an expert on foreign affairs and diplomacy and the security of our country. He had a rare combination of extraordinary knowledge, great wisdom, extraordinary skill and judgment, and a great moral compass. He rallied us to the cause of defending basic human freedom within the borders of the most powerful countries and in the most remote places in the world. He stood tall in the sometimes lonely fight for the people of China and Tibet. I was proud that we had the opportunity to work together, with the President of the United States in a bipartisan way, to honor the people of Tibet by presenting the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama last year. Tom, along with Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, were coauthors of that legislation. Thank you, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen. He fought to end the genocide in Darfur and recently helped enact legislation to crack down on the Sudanese regime. He worked to strengthen sanctions against the military junta in Burma and worked for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. In just his first year as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Lantos also helped enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations to better protect the American people. Throughout his three decades in the House, Tom Lantos always used his experience and intellect to empower the powerless and give voice to the voiceless throughout the world. Here at home, Tom Lantos championed working families. Working families had no better friend in the Congress of the United States than Tom Lantos, and he was a strong leader in protecting our family for the future. He also authored key provisions of our landmark energy bill, which the President signed into law. Thanks to Tom Lantos, that law includes provisions that will help the United States assume a greater leadership role in the world to fight climate change. He will long be remembered for his efforts to expand and protect the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which is one of the Nation's most visited national parks and a treasure for Bay Area residents. I had the privilege of serving with Tom as we shared representation of the City of San Francisco, and it was one of the privileges of my service in Congress, to work with him on behalf of the people of San Francisco. Congressman Lantos was also well known for his strong support of infrastructure improvements, including the expansion of BART service and other mass transit solutions. Though his leadership was felt around the world, he always remained a fierce advocate for his constituents in the 12th Congressional District. Tom Lantos called himself ``an American by choice.'' America is a stronger nation, a more caring nation, a nation more true to its founding ideals, because Tom Lantos chose to call this land his home. My thoughts and prayers are with Annette, dear Annette, their daughters Katrina and Annette, his 18 grandchildren, and his great grandchildren. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people throughout the entire world mourn their loss and are praying for them in this sad time. Good-bye, Tom, my friend. It was an honor to call you colleague, a privilege to serve with you, and a joy to be your friend.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his kind words and his extraordinary leadership, which made it possible for us to come to the floor with this bipartisan historic legislation tonight. Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your leadership. And thank you, Mr. McCrery, for yours. It's quite an evening when we can come together in a bipartisan way for legislation that helps the middle class, helps those aspire to the middle class, gives incentives to businesses to create jobs to stimulate our economy. I thank you for that. I acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, for his leadership, along with Ranking Member Bachus for his, because those who are concerned about, and that is all of us, the subprime crisis can see some relief in this legislation because of their leadership. I want to acknowledge another member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Kanjorski, and salute him for his leadership dropping the bill even before we took this up this evening for seniors and disabled veterans to be getting the recovery rebates as well, as well as clarification of language regarding undocumented persons in our country getting that benefit. Thank you, Mr. Kanjorski, for your leadership. Before I go on too long, I must salute Leader Boehner. It was a privilege to work with him on this. And Mr. Hoyer and I shared a view of our caucus. We came with consensus to the table. None of us got everything we wanted in the legislation, but we did get a great deal for the American people. We did so in a manner that was timely. We were acting in record time, targeted on the middle class and those who aspire to it, targeted to businesses, tax incentives to businesses to create jobs, and temporary. So these resources and these tax incentives will be used and spent in a way that will have an impact in the economy. I also want to salute Secretary Paulson for his persistence and his leadership and his receptivity, shall we say, and responsiveness to some of the values that the Democrats were putting on the table regarding those who have not participated in receiving a recovery rebate before, but do so in this bill. This was across the aisle, but it is also across the Capitol. We worked it out in record time, again, with Leader Reid and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, on the Senate side, so that tonight we could bring this bill to the floor. It was only about 2\1/2\ weeks ago that leadership was on the telephone with the President of the United States. He had just returned from his trip to the Middle East. And we talked about what every homemaker in America has known for a long time, that our economy is going into a downturn. We wanted to prevent it from being more of a downturn, and a stimulus was needed. We had heard from Chairman Bernanke about the state of the economy and that a stimulus was needed and that it should have certain features of being timely, targeted, and temporary. And the President, on that phone call, agreed that we should go forward with a stimulus package in record time. The House put it together and sent it over to the Senate. And I'm very, very proud of that. If I boast of it, it's because it's highly unusual that we can respond in such record time. But we did so because it was urgent for the American people. So often they listen in on the debate on the floor of the House which seems irrelevant to their lives. This is very relevant to their lives because there are many firsts in here. For the first time, those who don't make over a certain income are able to participate in the recovery rebates and the child tax credit. In fact, more than 40 million Americans, 40 million families will be receiving those rebates and tax credits who had never received a rebate or a tax refundable child tax credit before. That's just astounding. It was different from the bill the President originally proposed because his proposal did not have a cap, so some of the wealthiest people in America could get this rebate. Instead, we said, God bless them for their success. We need to put this money in the pockets of those who are living paycheck to paycheck, who are finding it hard or struggling to make ends meet with the price of gasoline, the price of groceries, the price of health care, the price of education, anything that you can name, that costs were going up and the purchasing power of their income was not. And so we believe that the stimulus, the way it is targeted, will put money in the hands of those who will spend it immediately, injecting demand into the economy and therefore creating jobs, the impact that we want the stimulus to have. Same thing with the small business incentives. One of the reasons we were able to move so quickly is because we were ready. We were ready. The reason we were ready with the child tax credit is because Congresswoman DeLauro has worked on this issue for her lifetime in Congress. And of course as chairman of the committee, Mr. Rangel has had this as a high priority. So it wasn't something that we had to go create. It's something that we had in our minds and in our hearts to do for a long time. The tax credits, the incentives for small businesses have been a part of the bipartisan support we have in the House for an innovation agenda so that small businesses and medium-size businesses can take advantage in a short period of time of this incentive that they have to invest and to purchase equipment and the rest. Again, for job creation, good- paying jobs here in America. We were ready because the Financial Services Committee, under the leadership of Mr. Barney Frank and Ranking Member Bachus, had already passed these bills on the floor of the House. Not everything in the bill is included in this stimulus, but these bills have passed the House and had been sent over to the Senate. Certain features are contained in this bill so that there is some relief for the subprime crisis. The list goes on and on. But we had our priorities; they have been our priorities for a while. They are particularly essential now in the time of a need of stimulus. So when the time came and the President said he would sign such a bill, we were ready with our priorities. We fought it out. It wasn't an easy fight, but we knew we had to do it in the shortest period of time. And it wasn't easy. And there were some things that I said to the President on the phone when he congratulated us for going forward that I would have liked to have seen in the bill, like unemployment insurance and LIHEAP and food stamps and the rest. But we will take care of those issues in due course. Every bill cannot accomplish every goal that we have. I want to identify myself with the comments that Mr. Bachus made. This is a fiscally sound bill. There were those who wanted to make it larger with elements that were not necessarily stimulus that we resisted, excellent ideas. They should be revisited in another piece of legislation for another day. But we had been cautioned over and over, and we have cautioned each other. And whatever we did in stimulus, even though it would not have to conform with PAYGO, strictly speaking, that it would not be so overloaded that it would be a deterrent to recovery because we would be taking our country more deeply in debt than was justified by our stimulus package for recovery. So, because of all of this cooperation, hopefully, it will serve as a model. I again want to commend Secretary Paulson for his perseverance and his leadership. And we look forward to soon, in a few days, perhaps, the President of the United States signing this bill. But the Secretary has assured us that with the passage of this bill tonight, even before the Presidential signature, the word will go to the IRS to begin the process of getting these checks out to the families. So I think every Member of this body should take great pride in the bipartisanship of it, in the focus of it, the discipline of it, and what it means: that it is relevant to the lives of the American people. A typical middle-income family, a family of four with two children, will get $1,800. Eighteen hundred dollars. I think that that is impressive. And families making less than that, other families, depending on the number of their children, will get a sizable check in the mail. This says to them we respect your contribution to our country, to our economy, to our society, and, even if you don't make a lot of money and pay income tax, that your contribution to our economy is recognized and acknowledging the FICA tax that you pay. And that's why once more I will reiterate that 40 million American families will participate in the recovery rebates to the tune of about $28 billion infused into our economy through their hands. This is a new direction. I urge my colleagues to support it and am proud to be associated with it. And I thank all for their leadership in making it possible this evening.