John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1155) honoring the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship, as amended.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 1155 into the Record.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship. The El Dorado Promise scholarship is a tuition scholarship which allows all students who graduate after attending all 4 years of high school in the El Dorado Public School District to attend any accredited 2- or 4-year college or university. While the enrollment in the El Dorado Public School District has decreased over 15 consecutive years, the establishment of this scholarship has seen enrollment in the district significantly increase. This scholarship program has also increased the number of students going to college after graduating high school by 20 percent. Mr. Speaker, these numbers are very impressive and I commend the students who have taken advantage of this wonderful opportunity. As you know, many students are struggling to pay the rising costs of tuition across the country. Additionally, students are graduating with more debt than ever before, and are working harder and harder to pay back their college loans. This growing college crisis has serious implications not just for students and families, but also for our Nation's economic future. In order to maintain our economic leadership in the world, we must make aggressive investments in our current and future workforce. Scholarships and grants similar to the El Dorado Promise scholarship, such as Georgia's Hope Scholarship, and California's CAL Grant continue to help students achieve their goal of going to college and alleviate the debt burden they carry after college. Once again, I congratulate the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for offering this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, over history, and particularly since 1970, we have been able to find balance of getting the necessary intelligence collection and also having the protection of our liberties and our constitutional rights; through wars, in fact through the Cold War, which are much more severe existential threats than we see today, to a Cold War where we had nuclear powers that we thought were ready to attack us. We didn't know when and we didn't know to what degree. We never found it necessary to totally abdicate our constitutional rights and privileges. It is unnecessary for us to do that. It is shameful that some think that now is an opportunity for us to do that. The legislation before us today allows us to, in timely ways, collect all of the intelligence we need. It allows us to do it before a court order in cases of emergency. It allows us to do it without delay. It allows us to have provisions for oversight. It allows us to do everything to protect this country and it protects our civil liberties. We have a situation with phone companies now wanting immunity. They've always had immunity. The question is did they go for it. Did they have a court order or did they have the proper certification? Why won't the White House let all Members of Congress see that? It would answer the questions if they saw the documents. All Members of Congress should see the Presidential order and discuss whether the breadth and scope was so breathtaking that they would rush to make sure that courts intervene to make sure we had the constitutional protections there and make sure that we saw the memos that were there for legal justification and whether or not they weren't farcical in some respects and make sure that we saw what went on between the companies and the administration. If the companies think that they have reason to believe that, despite the fact that they didn't take advantage of their immunity provisions, they still have a claim of defense, we've provided a way for them to go to court so they can make that case. Going forward, they have immunity and a way to protect themselves in the past. Let's get over the nonsense and pass this law.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the chairman. This is all about access and affordability. It is foremost in people's minds, whether you speak to people in the business community, you talk to academics or elected representatives or families and students, they are talking about opportunity for individuals, talking about the national economic security of this country and our need for innovators, for leaders, for people in the science, technology, engineering and math fields, and in business we are talking about global competitiveness, the need to have people with more than just a high school degree in order to lead our businesses and fill our jobs. This bill addresses these concerns, and it builds on last summer's college cost reduction bill which put $20 billion in over the next 5 years, additional Pell Grants to get more students into college, and reduction of loan interest rates so students will be able to afford those loans they were forced to take. This present bill speaks to cost containment. It has a provision in there for public higher education, for maintenance of efforts. This is a partnership between the Federal Government, between families and the students that are involved, and States. This maintenance of effort will no longer allow States to supplant their obligation by taking Federal aid or raising tuition and fees. They will have to step up to the plate on a rather modest level required in order to get the benefit of getting aid that other people would get. This bill also has a provision for all universities and colleges that if they keep their tuition and fee increases below the higher education price index, then they will be rewarded for additional grant money on their campuses to distribute among Pell student recipients; and if they make the promise over 5 years and keep it, they will get additional bonuses as well. We have a ``service pays'' provision in there for people that are going into public service jobs, from prosecutors to teachers going into difficult areas, to health care and public health people, loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 to smooth their way on that basis, alternative paths to teaching. For those people that are in mid-career and decide they want to teach, we have offered partnerships to make that happen to enhance our Teacher Corps. We have endowment information so we can find whether or not the public policy of allowing people to not pay taxes if they donate to schools actually has a result of going into education. All of these things are important. This is a good bill. We respect the fact that it came out of committee in unanimous form, and we look forward to support on the floor.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue before us on this resolution is whether or not this institution, the Congress, is going to absolutely carry out its oversight responsibilities and demand that the executive branch provide to us materials we need to make reasonable determinations as to whether or not there is an extent of corruption in Iraq with respect to what is going on there, but also whether or not our State Department and other agencies are doing all they should do to build up the capacity of the Iraqi Government to be able to combat corruption. In December 2006, and again in July of 2007, the United States Embassy in Iraq produced two reports that weighed on those issues, corruption in the Iraqi Government, and would have shown us some capacity of whether or not the United States was doing enough about it. They were marked ``sensitive but unclassified.'' And they were widely distributed within the United States Government and they were even posted on the Internet. In September, the Oversight Committee requested copies of those two documents. But rather than provide them in their unclassified form, the State Department decided to retroactively classify them, in essence, keeping them from public view or from public debate. The State Department classified these documents only after the committee requested that they be produced. And they gave this task to an official who told the committee he had never in his life been requested to review for classification before. Incredibly, the State Department then retroactively also classified key portions of a Government Accountability Office report that was issued to the Oversight Committee at a public hearing on October 4. Now, David Walker, the Comptroller General, testified in open session that this Government Accountability Office report addressed corruption in Iraq and the failure of the United States agencies to properly support capacity-building efforts in Iraqi ministries. This is not about just deciding how much corruption there was in playing that. It's about deciding whether or not there had been sufficient capacity- building efforts in Iraq ministries to prevent corruption. Mr. Walker issued the report, copies were handed out to the press, and it was posted on the Internet. But after the hearing, the State Department classified those portions of the report that addressed Iraq's commitment or a lack of commitment to fighting corruption. And yesterday, the State Department claimed in a letter to Congress that they classified the Government Accountability Office report prior to official publication, but, in fact, when we checked with the Government Accountability Office, they said that was not true. The State Department reviewed this report before it was released. They confirmed that it contained no classified information. It was not until after the report was released at the public hearing that the State Department retroactively classified it. Secretary Rice may not want the public to know what the Government Accountability Office found when it investigated whether the Maliki government is committed to fighting corruption, or they may not want the public to know whether or not the government is actually working hard enough to build the necessary capacity to stop and check corruption in Iraq. But it's a gross abuse of the administration's powers to retroactively classify these findings and the findings of the State Department's own embassy officials and to do it retroactively. Classification cannot be allowed to happen primarily because people think they're going to be embarrassed, whatever government may be embarrassed. Congress has to exercise its prerogative here and do the proper oversight for the protection of our troops and of the public's interests. Testimony was that some $18 billion in corruption was occurring in Iraq, and that was without going into the oil ministry, where significant further corruption was believed to happen. Testimony was that monies from that corruption were going to fund militias, who in turn were placing their focus on targeting United States troops. It is imperative that this Congress investigate whether or not, through review of these documents and other sources, we are making enough efforts to build the capacity in Iraq to make sure that that corruption stops and that our troops, our men and women in service, are not being targeted through corruption. Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter. This is the prerogative of this House. This should not be about partisan politics or protecting the home team. This should be about making sure that we protect our troops and the public interest.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Abner W. Darby of Lynn, Massachusetts. Abner Darby was born and raised in Austin, Texas, where he was a star athlete excelling in football and track and field. He went on to attend Prairie View University before he honorably served the country as a member of the United States Army. Although Abner was a Master Mechanic; owned and operated two gas stations in Lynn; and served as a housing manager for the Lynn Housing Authority, Mr. Darby will best be remembered for the time he spent as Executive Director of the Community Minority Cultural Center (CMCC). The CMCC provided Mr. Darby with the vehicle through which he affected positive change in the community and where he did the work that was his passion. Abner Darby dedicated his life to making the lives of those around him better. Having personally experienced the pains of segregation, Abner worked tirelessly to erase discrimination and open doors and create equal access and equal opportunity for all people regardless of race, creed or national origin. He did so locally, statewide and nationally. Through his work at the CMCC, Abner Darby served as a bridge between Lynn's increasingly diverse community and the city's traditional, established institutions. For many, the first steps on the ladder of opportunity were taken on Abner Darby's back. Abner fought diligently to ensure that the benefits of economic development and employment opportunities were shared by all. He spearheaded efforts for the recruitment and training for Civil Service positions that led to the hiring of minority firefighters and police officers. Under his leadership, the CMCC offered job fairs, computer training, after school programs and ESL classes, and it also sponsored art exhibitions, cultural celebrations and workshops so the diverse communities could develop a better understanding and appreciation for one another. Without Abner's efforts, some would have remained culturally, economically and educationally deprived. There was only one thing that Abner Darby could not do. When asked to do something, Abner could never say no. More importantly, when he promised something, he always delivered. Abner Darby is a loyal, hard working and well-respected man. He is gifted with an infectious laugh, contagious enthusiasm and a warm, embracing personality that moves others to follow him. Tonight in Lynn, Abner Darby's family, friends, neighbors and colleagues will gather to salute and offer thanks to a man who has made an indelible mark on the city and helped its residents in countless ways. It is a most appropriate and deserving recognition for someone who has given so much of himself to his community.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor St. John's Preparatory School in Danvers, Massachusetts, on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary Celebration and extend the congratulations and best wishes from the United States House of Representatives for continued success in all of its future endeavors to the School's Board of Trustees, Administration, Faculty, Staff and Alumni. St. John's Preparatory School held its first day of classes on September 10, 1907, and over the next century, it has graduated 12,000 alumni, who have gone on to make significant, lasting contributions in careers and communities throughout the region, across the country and around the world. Today, St. John's Preparatory School continues to honor the legacy of its founders, the Congregation of the Brothers of St. Francis Xavier, and remains dedicated to the pursuit of humility, zeal, compassion, trust and simplicity in all endeavors. Throughout its history, the School has nurtured a dynamic community of learners encouraging its students to develop their full spiritual, intellectual, moral, physical and creative potential, and it has inspired its student body to value and honor the diversity that enriches both the school community and the world beyond its campus. St. John's Prep students continually strive for excellence and have earned distinction in scholarship, athletics, service and the arts. The Prep, as it is better known by many, is committed to the character, mission and values of a Catholic education and since its opening has celebrated its Catholic identity and formed partnerships with schools in the region to enhance educational opportunity and ensure access for students from all walks of life. St. John's Preparatory School seeks to promote human dignity and the pursuit of peace and justice, and its alumni, students, faculty and staff have established various programs to respond to the needs of many working side by side with other volunteers and social service organizations locally, nationally and internationally. Congratulations to St. John's Preparatory School for one hundred years of education, inspiration and enrichment bestowed upon so many who have passed through its halls and in recognition of the contributions and accomplishments of its alumni, administration, faculty, staff and students that have touched many throughout the world.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, this amendment seeks to assist those individuals who are eligible borrowers that have been unfairly impacted by a statutory change to HUD's upfront mortgage insurance premium refund policy. Under the HUD program, borrowers pay an upfront mortgage insurance of 1.5 percent of their FHA loan amount, and if they repay that loan, the borrowers may be due refunds of the prepaid insurance. However, back in 2005 when Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act, it included language directing that, for mortgages endorsed for insurance on or after the date of enactment, which was December 8 of 2004, borrowers would not be eligible for refunds on their prepaid insurance. I have heard from constituents in my district, and I am sure there are constituents in other districts as well, who closed on their mortgage prior to December 8, 2004, but regrettably have been prevented from receiving their refund because HUD did not endorse their loan until after December 2004. These constituents reportedly were not adequately informed by their lender about the potential revisions to the refund policy because the lenders themselves were not informed by HUD of the change until January of 2005. I have heard from one family, for instance, who is seeking to buy a home in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and found themselves harmed by this provision. Although they seemed to do everything right in their own front, they were closing on their loan in November 2004, the family was prevented from receiving a refund that totaled almost as much as $5,000 because HUD endorsed their mortgage on December 10, 2004, and their lender never informed them of that consequence because, as I mentioned, the lender didn't learn it until December 2005. It certainly seems that it was an unintended consequence of the provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005. Also worth noting is that in response to a letter that was sent by Chairman Frank and me to the HUD Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, it was indicated in his letter that he did not support the changes to the refund policy in their Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005. This amendment makes a meaningful first step toward helping certain eligible borrowers, many of whom are low-income families who have played by the rules in pursuing their dreams of homeownership. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to highlight one aspect of the Energy bill that is before the House today, that's the provision essentially incorporating the Green Jobs Act of 2007, which had previously been passed by the House Committee on Education and Labor. Let me begin by acknowledging and thanking Speaker Pelosi for making this issue, ``the green workforce development,'' a priority in her environmental agenda. My cosponsor, Hilda Solis of California, is appreciated for her work in ensuring that a broad cross section of workers get in at the bottom floor of this growing industry. This innovative proposal, ``green jobs,'' will make $120 million a year available across the country to begin training workers for jobs in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education that will provide for them secure employment in this country. Until now, the United States has not really had a coherent strategy to address the growing labor shortage and demands of these green and clean energy sectors. This bill, this particular provision, will help a broad cross section of workers get into these growing industries. Green-collar jobs can provide living wages and upward mobility. For some, they will create a way out of poverty, even as they help improve our environment and buttress our national security by lessening reliance on foreign oil. We've passed legislation to increase science, technology, engineering and math teachers, to educate more engineers and scientists. Now we have the chance to make sure that those who do not have degrees or do not choose to go to college can also support a family and contribute to their communities. Urban youth, retired veterans, struggling farmers, and displaced workers from our manufacturing sectors can all get training through this proposal. They will help meet a growing labor need as America seeks thousands of green-collar workers to install millions of solar panels, to weatherize buildings and homes, to build and maintain wind farms, and more. These jobs are energy saving, air quality improving, and carbon cutting, and they're all local. They mostly cannot be outsourced to other countries. Solar panels and wind farms need to be built here. Buildings to be retrofitted to save energy have their foundations in U.S. soil. Today, we can join Speaker Pelosi and the many numerous advocacy organizations that have worked hard to develop and expand the concept of green jobs, making sure that the benefits of a cleaner and greener economy are shared broadly at all income levels. Special acknowledgement goes to the Ella Baker Center's Van Jones, whose passionate expressions have been liberally borrowed here and whose personal energy has greatly advanced this idea. The return in energy savings helped by green jobs can be enormous. The positive impact on lives from rewarding employment can be priceless. Mr. Chairman, this provision of the clean energy bill can help provide America with the working muscle, practical experience and training, and industry-specific intelligence to change our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to support the entire bill, being mindful that the Green Jobs Act of 2007 contributes specifically to this appeal.

Mr. TIERNEY. I am going to reserve the balance of the Education Committee's time on this and defer to the Committee on Energy.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the other body has not acted, in my opinion, this humble Member's opinion, in a way that warrants great respect of the American people. It has done not just violence to the fourth amendment and violence to our civil liberties; it has eviscerated them with the bill it has sent over here for action. The American people have a right to expect more from us. This is the Protect America Act of 2007. The American people expect to be protected and to be secure, not just against terrorists and other foreign threats, but also to be secure in the rights established in the Constitution of the United States, to know that we are standing up for the Constitution and fulfilling our pledge and our oath of office. This bill does not do this. It purports to provide security, but it certainly doesn't provide any protections for our constitutional rights and civil liberties. We should have done better, and we could do better. This administration took the Secretary of State and sent him to the U.N. on a mission which everyone ended up being ashamed of. Now they have sent the DNI, I fear, over here to make an agreement and find a bill that he can live with, under the premise that when he said he would, the President would sign it. Well, the conversations he had, he indicated that our bill strengthened the security of this country. But after a conversation with the White House, that was withdrawn, and now we end up with a bill that does not protect our civil liberties. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we can do better and we should do better. This bill starts off with the words ``notwithstanding any other law.'' That assumes that notwithstanding the Constitution, notwithstanding the fourth amendment, notwithstanding our civil liberties they are giving the authority to a President, a Director of National Intelligence, and an Attorney General, any Attorney General, to make decisions that should be made by a court, that should at least be reviewed by a court. We have provided in a Democratic alternative a way to secure that protection and the security of this country, while still protecting our rights. The White House saw an opportunity to roll over that into a bill that is going to be I think regretted by everyone in this Chamber if they pass it, and it should be regretted in the Senate for what they did. We are not doing this country any favors. If we think we are going to correct this in 120 days, when you give up your securities, when you give up your rights under the Constitution, it is not likely you are going to regain them. As somebody said earlier tonight, your civil liberties don't go in a loud noise and a clap of thunder and the curtain coming down; they go quietly with whispers and into the darkness. That is what is happening with this bill, Mr. Speaker. We will all regret it. We should pass a bill that secures this country, certainly and gives us all of the intelligence that needs to be intercepted, but we should do it in a way that doesn't sacrifice our civil liberties and the fourth amendment and our Constitution.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, for some time now, for months, the administration has been contending that it needed relief from a warrant obligation to intercept communications between a foreign agent and a foreign agent. But we all know that doesn't apply. You don't need a warrant in those situations. So it has long been our contention that that wasn't needed and we did not need to approve the administration's sweeping request for the authority to tap every American citizen based on that premise. We offered legislation to just clarify that fact, and the Republicans voted against it, and the administration turned it down. Now, last week, the DNI came forward and informed us of a critical collection gap in electronic surveillance. So we went to work again and met with the DNI to try to resolve and identify just what it was and negotiate a resolution. We did that despite the fact the administration has been withholding documentation that would help us do that. But now the President has started to politicize it. He took to the airwaves and began pressing for essentially warrantless surveillance and searches on all Americans' phone calls, e-mails, homes, offices and personal records for at least 3 months and probably a lot longer than that by virtue of heading all the way through the appeals process. He also sought authority to search concerning a person abroad. Didn't even have to target a person abroad, a foreign person. In other words, the search did not have to be directed in that direction, just concerning a person abroad. It would also authorize any search inside the United States if the government can claim it concerns an al Qaeda or affiliate. And it also sought authority for the Attorney General to authorize surveillance into and out of the United States with a court review only to determine that the procedures of the Attorney General clearly were erroneous; and, even if they found that, it was only advisory, apparently, because there was no remedy. No review or audit by a Department of Justice Inspector General to see how this was implemented. No sunset provision forcing review. Essentially an indefinite suspension of our constitutional rights and our civil liberties. Based on the word of this Attorney General? This one? And this President? Intercepts United States citizens without finding a foreign agent is involved; rather, only that the conversations were believed. By this Attorney General? To concern people that were involved with al Qaeda? For any foreign intelligence, not just those related to terror or al Qaeda-related. No clerk, no judge, nobody in the balance to review this. No sunset. The rule of law is still critical in this country. It is exactly when the government thinks that it can be the sole fair arbiter that we most need a judicial system to stand in and strike the balance. Even after our leadership agreed to do what the DNI mostly wanted, this administration still turned it down, still was on TV, still politicizing this effort. Let's tell the President that we don't need a politician right now in the White House, we need a leader, somebody to stand up and draw this country together, somebody to make sure that we get the intelligence we need, that knows how to say ``yes'' when the DNI's requests are done. The President went on TV saying that when the DNI told him that the deal was acceptable, that the war would work, he would accept it. Well, when the DNI talked to Democrats and leadership and said he was fine with what they suggested, a change would work, he went back to the White House and instead we got this sweeping law. Let's make our Constitution work. We can have security and our civil liberties.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for acknowledging me. I am happy to rise in support of this bill here today. A conversation I heard a short while ago from my colleagues that there are some people in America who are taking welfare and don't need to have public assistance to go on to college are probably not thinking of the same America that I am thinking of. I am thinking of the America where college costs have gone up 41 percent after inflation, and that is just for public higher education. I am thinking of the America where parents are working two jobs on many occasions, the students are working, and they still can't afford the cost of a public higher education. I am thinking of the America that has not raised the value of a Pell Grant for many, many years, and we have a chance here to do just that. I am looking at a bill and supporting a bill that in fact will raise the Pell Grants, is going to lower the interest rate on student loans, both of which are necessary for many, many families in this country. I am talking for businesses as well as families. This is a chance not just to help the individuals, but to help our economy. We all are very happy to talk about the need, to really have the college-educated populace out there so we can be competitive globally. This is our opportunity to put our money where our mouth is. This is a good piece of work. I congratulate the chairman for getting this through and look forward to passing this bill in the whole House.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to ask support for a rather straightforward budget-neutral amendment that will meaningfully contribute to our campaign against international terrorism and serve the long-term national securities interests of the United States. My amendment would provide an additional $75 million for basic education programs directly reaching Pakistani children through the U.S. Agency for International Development or provided through local and international nongovernmental organizations offering reliable and effective basic education services. In doing so, the amendment serves long-term United States national security interests by helping to give Pakistani children an educational alternative to extremist, jihadi- teaching madrassas. I am pleased that the Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee has agreed to accept this amendment. In their bill and committee report, the gentlewoman from New York and the rest of the members of the committee have recognized the importance of basic education assistance to our country's long-term national security interests. This amendment would complement and build off of those important efforts, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her willingness to work with me and accept my amendment. The 9/11 Commission described a ``generational struggle'' against international terrorism, stressing the importance that any offensive efforts ``be accompanied by a preventative strategy.'' They also noted, ``It is hard to overstate the importance of Pakistan in the struggle against Islamic terrorism'' and urged the United States Government to support in Pakistan ``a comprehensive effort that extends from military aid to support for better education.'' Unfortunately, we have not yet gone far enough in that regard. In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project gave the United States Government a D grade for not doing enough to support secular education. It noted, ``United States assistance to Pakistan has not moved sufficiently beyond security assistance to include significant funding for education efforts.'' And just a few months ago, our own State Department concluded, ``Pakistan remains a major source of Islamic extremism.'' This is precisely the time that we should be spending substantially more on education, where we should be broadening and deepening our relationship with the Pakistani people with aid that reaches directly into the Pakistani homes. This amendment is an important first step in this endeavor by providing an extra $785 million infusion for basic education directly to Pakistani children, an extra $75 million that would come on top of Pakistani education funding already in the bill and what we have provided for before. This amendment provides this additional $75 million for basic education by reprogramming existing funds within the Economic Support fund account; $50 million of the total $75 million will be drawn from that part of the Economic Support fund that provides direct budgetary support for the Pakistani Government. Over the last several years, the Pakistani Government has been receiving hundreds of millions of dollars per year in a cash transfer. This amendment would ensure that $50 million of those funds be reprogrammed to ensure they reach Pakistani children and not simply be handed over to the Pakistani Government without direction. The other $25 million of the $75 million total would come from the nonbudgetary support component of the Economic Support fund. All of us hope to support the Pakistani people in their efforts to achieve a stable, prosperous and free nation. But our national security interests here are much more acute. Will we be safe over the next 5, 10 or 20 years as thousands of more young people learn jihad at extremist madrassas instead of learning real-world skills to become productive citizens in their communities and in our shared world? When asked about this amendment, former 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton responded, ``Increased U.S. funding for basic education provided by the Tierney Pakistan Education Assistance Amendment will send a powerful message that we are committed to a better future for young Pakistanis and to supporting alternatives to radical Islamic education. Sending this kind of a message is hugely important to the future of America's relationship with the people of Pakistan and our efforts to combat radical Islam.'' It is past time to heed the 9/11 Commission's warning by fighting terrorism at its source, by stopping the process of extremism before it can begin, by helping the children of Pakistan to have an alternative to extreme madrassas. That should be at the core of our long-term national security strategy, that is what this amendment is all about. Again I thank the gentlewoman from New York for accepting this amendment. I look forward to working with her to see that this additional funding for basic education programs directly reaching Pakistani children is retained in conference.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, if the chairwoman will yield, I want to again say I was in Pakistan at the same time that you were, approximately, and you witnessed, as did we, exactly what you are talking about. This is a great effort, to be able to go in the right direction, to put in public education as an alternative to the madrassas. I thank you for the fine work you have done, and your committee as well.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to talk about an amendment that I would have offered but won't do so because I understand it's subject to a point of order. Pakistan is scheduled to have crucial parliamentary elections in the fall of 2007 and the early winter of 2008. My amendment would withhold a portion of military aid to Pakistan unless those elections occurred and were free, fair and democratic. Specifically, the amendment would have withheld $175 million out of a total of $250 million that's allocated under this bill for foreign military financing in Pakistan. These funds would be released when the Secretary of State determined, giving due consideration to the credible, independent judgment of reliable agencies that elections in Pakistan were free, fair and democratic. The amendment also asks that all steps of the election process, from voter registration on through vote tabulation, be reviewed in reaching any such judgment. This amendment would send a powerful message to the people of Pakistan about the importance the United States places on the democratic process. Instead of just talking about the importance of democracy and saying that all peoples of the world should have these rights, the amendment quite literally would give Congress a chance to act consistently with its word. Since the coup in which he rose to power 8 years ago, President Musharraf has taken some positive steps, but his record is, at best, mixed, especially recently. Today, President Musharraf is fighting the most serious challenge to his 8-year dictatorship. The United States is supporting him fully, and I guess that means that the message from the United States to the Pakistani public would seem clear: The Bush administration sees the war on terrorism as topping everything, even support for democracy. On March 9, President Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was apparently seen as threatening to President Musharraf's plans to consolidate his power. That triggered street protests demanding Musharraf's resignation, followed by a government-led crackdown on lawyers, the opposition political parties, and the media. Thousands of lawyers nationwide have led marches joined by women's groups, journalists and opposition politicians. The roots of this crisis go back to a blind bargain that Washington made after 9/11 with a general and the army that had, up until then, been the main patrons of the Taliban. The administration ignored Musharraf's despotism in return for his promises to crack down on al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, despite $10 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, that deal is shattered. In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project issued a report card noting that Musharraf has made efforts to take on the threat of extremism, but has not shut down extremist-linked madrassas or terrorist camps. Taliban forces still pass freely across the Pakistan-Afghani border and operate in Pakistani tribal areas. These border groups gained political legitimacy last year when President Musharraf signed a series of dubious peace deals with the Pakistan Taliban. Extremist madrassas remain, and the extremism only becomes more pervasive and dangerous. Madrassa students are burning books, CDs and DVDs. Women in Islamabad have had acid doused in their faces for their failure to wear burkas, and have been harassed for driving cars. The military has refused to put a brake on their extremism. As terrorism author Ahmed Rashid said, Musharraf promised the international community that he would purge pro-Taliban elements from his security service and convinced the Bush administration that his philosophy of ``enlightened moderation'' was the only way to fend off Islamic extremism, but Pakistan today is still the center of global Islamic terrorism. Our own State Department concluded the same thing several weeks ago. Mr. Rashid is correct in saying that instead of confronting this threat, the army has focused on keeping Musharraf in power. In trying to spook the West into continuing to support him, he exaggerates grossly the strength of the Islamic parties and warns that they might take over his nuclear-armed country. Mr. Chairman, the fact is the United States would be far safer if we supported a truly representative Pakistan government that could marginalize the Jihadists rather than placing all of its eggs in a Musharraf basket. A better outcome for all would be that everybody participate in free and fair elections, and we should act in favor of democracy with those policies.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Councillor Leonard F. O'Leary of Salem, MA. Councillor O'Leary recently announced that he would not be seeking reelection. It will be the first time since 1984 when he was first elected as Councillor of Salem's Ward Four that the O'Leary name will not appear on the ballot. Lennie honorably served twelve consecutive, two-year terms, and his twenty-four years on the Salem City Council rank him among the longest serving City Councillors in Salem's long and storied history. He earned the respect of his colleagues on the Council over the years as reflected by their electing him Council President on four occasions during his tenure. Lennie's institutional knowledge made him a valuable resource on the Council as he served as Chair on all of the Council's committees, including the Finance Committee and Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs. He also served as the longtime Council Liaison to the City's Board of Health. Councillor O'Leary served his country as a member of the National Guard from 1961-1967, and he took great pride in advocating in support of his fellow veterans while on the Council. In his over two decade long Council career, Lennie was legendary in his devotion to his Ward Four constituents, and he provided them with reliable and responsive service. He kept them informed with regular neighborhood meetings and tended to their every need whether by filing measures to prohibit overnight parking of heavy vehicles in residential neighborhoods or meeting with engineers and DPW crews to make sure road work proceeded in a timely and reasonable manner. Lennie advocated tirelessly for his Ward Four neighbors appearing at hundreds of Board of Appeals, Planning Board, and Conservation Committee hearings to make sure their concerns had a voice and were heard. He was rewarded by support across his Ward that was broad and deep. Lennie would be the first to admit that he did not do it all alone. He would tell you that he had good friends and that he had good fortune in working with four mayors and countless dedicated colleagues on the Council. However, most important to Lennie was the full and untiring support he received from his wife Mary, who often accompanied him to those late night Council and Board meetings. Mary provided counsel that he could trust. This week in Salem, Lennie's colleagues, friends, neighbors, and family will gather to celebrate and thank Councillor Leonard F. O'Leary for 24 years of unselfish public service. It is a most appropriate and deserving recognition for someone who has given so much of himself to the City of Salem.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chair, the amendment I and my colleague, Rush Holt, are offering this evening is really quite simple. It reduces the $8.1 billion specified by the Missile Defense Agency by approximately $1 billion and takes a modest but necessary step in refocusing on missile defense policy. I think we should make no mistake about it, we have spent $107 billion since the days of the Reagan administration on missile defense. We have had years of unanticipated cost growth, unacceptable schedule delays, and unaccountable management by the Pentagon. It is time for a change in that policy. It is time for a change in how we address ballistic missile defense. We have plenty of other priority national security matters and more pressing homeland security needs to address. How much longer can Congress continue to acquiesce and authorize billions of dollars in funds for this deeply flawed system? The Pentagon continues to build before testing; it is a recipe for waste. We can tell my colleagues that if the status quo continues, the Congressional Budget Office projects the total cost for missile defense will peak in the year 2016 at about $15 billion per year, excluding cost risk. If you add in cost risk, the CBO knows that the Pentagon's projected investment needs for missile defense might go to $18 billion. We are going to hear from others here that North Korea, Iran, and China have the potential for proliferation of missile technology, and all of that is not sufficient reason for opposing this amendment. The fact of the matter is that argument would rest on the false assumption that the current system could actually defend this country against those risks. It can't because it doesn't work. It continues to not be able to work because it lacks operational testing that is realistic. That hasn't occurred, and it does not look like it is likely to occur any time soon. We know and understand the threats confronting this country, and a $1 billion cut in the Missile Defense Agency, the way it is done here, will certainly not compromise our national security. And, in fact, by forcing the Pentagon to test before it builds, it will actually make sure that we don't have false securities. This Congress should not continue to acquiesce in the authorization on this deeply flawed system. We have to come to terms with certain stubborn realities and have the courage to change course. We are not alone in thinking this way. There were seven reports issued last year from nonpartisan groups, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, the Pentagon's Director of Operational, Test and Evaluation, all arrived at the same conclusion: ``Change in this program is imperative.'' Our amendment will focus on high-risk, longer-term research programs and target those initiatives that simply do not warrant immediate congressional support. It reflects the views of the conferees to last year's defense authorization bill who wrote that they ``believe that the emphasis of our missile defense efforts should be on the current generation of missile defense capabilities.'' I would now like yield to my colleague, Mr. Holt.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I simply close by saying this is a system which has not been realistically tested in the operational sense. The moneys that are being cut here are not necessary for near- term programs. They are high risk, down the road. It is appropriate for us to redirect those spendings on issues that are more immediate in terms of our national security defense at this point in time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.