Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 for January 5, 2007

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Issue]
[Pages 273-379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 273]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Friday, January 5, 2007

The House met at 9:30 a.m.
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
``Like the eyes of a servant
on the hand of her mistress
so our eyes are on the Lord our God.
till He shows us His mercy.''
Lord, giver of all good gifts, You know as an institution the House
of Representatives is served by many staffers and workers. As the 110th
Congress begins its work, bless all who labor here on Capitol Hill.
From police to parliamentarian to painter, recording clerk to reporter,
both physician and political adviser, all are a blessing to the Members
who are here to serve You and Your people by governance.
Assist them in their daily tasks, for all contribute to the common
undertaking and serve this country. Be present to them in the midst of
routine and show them Your mercy, both now and forever. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) come forward and
lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. POE led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 11 of rule X and clause 11 of rule I,
the Chair appoints the following members of the House to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence:
Mr. Reyes, Texas, Chairman
Mr. Hoekstra, Michigan

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER. The Chair customarily takes this occasion at the outset
of a Congress to announce her policies with respect to particular
aspects of the legislative process. The Chair will insert in the Record
announcements concerning:
first, privileges of the floor;
second, introduction of bills and resolutions;
third, unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of
legislation;
fourth, recognition for 1-minute speeches;
fifth, decorum in debate;
sixth, conduct of votes by electronic device;
seventh, use of handouts on the House floor; and
eighth, use of electronic equipment on the House floor.
These announcements, where appropriate, will reiterate the origins of
the stated policies. The Chair intends to continue in the 110th
Congress the policies reflected in these statements. The policy
announced in the 102nd Congress with respect to jurisdictional concepts
related to clause 5(a) of rule XXI--tax and tariff measures--will
continue to govern but need not be reiterated, as it is adequately
documented as precedent in the House Rules and Manual.
Without objection, the announcements will be printed in the Record.
There was no objection.

1. Privileges of the Floor

The Chair will make the following announcements regarding
floor privileges, which will apply during the 110th Congress.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER WITH RESPECT TO STAFF

Rule IV strictly limits those persons to whom the
privileges of the floor during sessions of the House are
extended, and that rule prohibits the Chair from entertaining
requests for suspension or waiver of that rule. As reiterated
by the Chair on January 21, 1986, January 3, 1985, January
25, 1983, and August 22, 1974, and as stated in Chapter 10,
section 2, of House Practice, the rule strictly limits the
number of committee staff on the floor at one time during the
consideration of measures reported from their committees.
This permission does not extend to Members' personal staff
except when a Member's amendment is actually pending during
the five-minute rule. It also does not extend to personal
staff of Members who are sponsors of pending bills or who are
engaging in special orders. The Chair requests the
cooperation of all Members and committee staff to assure that
only the proper number of staff are on the floor, and then
only during the consideration of measures within the
jurisdiction of their committees. The Chair is making this
statement and reiterating this policy because of Members'
past insistence upon strict enforcement of the rule. The
Chair requests each chairman, and each ranking minority
member, to submit to the Speaker a list of those staff who
are allowed on the floor during the consideration of a
measure reported by their committee. The Sergeant-at-Arms,
who has been directed to assure proper enforcement of rule
IV, will keep the list. Each staff person should exchange his
or her ID for a ``committee staff'' badge, which is to be
worn while on the floor. The Chair has consulted with the
Minority Leader and will continue to consult with him.
Furthermore, as the Chair announced on January 7, 2003, in
accordance with the change in the 108th Congress of clause
2(a) of rule IV regarding leadership staff floor access, only
designated staff approved by the Speaker shall be granted the
privilege of the floor. The Speaker intends that her approval
be narrowly granted on a bipartisan basis to staff from the
majority and minority side and only to those staff essential
to floor activities.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER WITH RESPECT TO FORMER MEMBERS

The Speaker's policy announced on February 1, 2006, will
continue to apply in the 110th Congress.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER, FEBRUARY 1, 2006

The SPEAKER. The House has adopted a revision to the rule
regarding the admission to the floor and the rooms leading
thereto. Clause 4 of rule IV provides that a former Member,
Delegate or Resident Commissioner or a former Parliamentarian
of the House, or a former elected officer of the House or a
former minority employee nominated as an elected officer of
the House shall not be entitled to the privilege of admission
to the Hall of the House and the rooms extending thereto if
he or she is a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign
principal; has any direct personal pecuniary interest in any
legislative measure pending before the House, or reported by
a committee; or is in the employ of or represents any party
or organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or
indirectly, the passage, defeat, or amendment of any
legislative proposal.
This restriction extends not only to the House floor but
adjacent rooms, the cloakrooms and the Speaker's lobby.
Clause 4 of rule IV also allows the Speaker to exempt
ceremonial and educational functions from the restrictions of
this clause. These restrictions shall not apply to attendance
at joint meetings or joint sessions, Former Members' Day
proceedings, educational tours, and other occasions as the
Speaker may designate.
Members who have reason to know that a person is on the
floor inconsistent with clause 4 of rule IV should notify the
Sergeant at Arms promptly.

2. Introduction of Bills and Resolutions

The policy that the Chair announced on January 3, 1983,
with respect to the introduction and reference of bills and
resolutions will continue to apply in the 110th Congress. The
Chair has advised all officers and employees of the House
that are involved in the processing of bills that every bill,
resolution, memorial, petition or other material that is
placed in the hopper must bear the signature of a Member.
Where a bill or resolution is jointly sponsored, the
signature must be that of the Member first named thereon. The

[[Page 274]]

bill clerk is instructed to return to the Member any bill
which appears in the hopper without an original signature.
This procedure was inaugurated in the 92d Congress. It has
worked well, and the Chair thinks that it is essential to
continue this practice to insure the integrity of the process
by which legislation is introduced in the House.

3. Unanimous-Consent Requests for the Consideration of Legislation

The policy the Chair announced on January 6, 1999, with
respect to recognition for unanimous consent requests for the
consideration of certain legislative measures will continue
to apply in the 110th Congress. The Speaker will continue to
follow the guidelines recorded in section 956 of the House
Rules and Manual conferring recognition for unanimous-consent
requests for the consideration of bills, resolutions, and
other measures only when assured that the majority and
minority floor leadership and committee chairmen and ranking
minority members have no objection. Consistent with those
guidelines, and with the Chair's inherent power of
recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII, the Chair, and any
occupant of the Chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore
pursuant to clause 8 of rule I, will decline recognition for
the unanimous-consent requests chronicled in section 956
without assurances that the request has been so cleared. This
denial of recognition by the Chair will not reflect
necessarily any personal opposition on the part of the Chair
to orderly consideration of the matter in question, but will
reflect the determination upon the part of the Chair that
orderly procedures will be followed; that is, procedures
involving consultation and agreement between floor and
committee leadership on both sides of the aisle.

4. Recognition for One-Minute Speeches

Announcement by the speaker with respect to one-minute speeches

The Speaker's policy announced on August 8, 1984, with
respect to recognition for one-minute speeches will apply
during the 110th Congress. The Chair will alternate
recognition for one-minute speeches between majority and
minority Members, in the order in which they seek recognition
in the well under present practice from the Chair's right to
the Chair's left, with possible exceptions for Members of the
leadership and Members having business requests. The Chair,
of course, reserves the right to limit one-minute speeches to
a certain period of time or to a special place in the program
on any given day, with notice to the leadership.

5. Decorum in Debate

The Chair's announced policies of January 7, 2003, January
4, 1995, and January 3, 1991, will apply in the 110th
Congress. It is essential that the dignity of the proceedings
of the House be preserved, not only to assure that the House
conducts its business in an orderly fashion but also to
permit Members to properly comprehend and participate in the
business of the House. To this end, and in order to permit
the Chair to understand and to correctly put the question on
the numerous requests that are made by Members, the Chair
requests that Members and others who have the privileges of
the floor desist from audible conversation in the Chamber
while the business of the House is being conducted. The Chair
would encourage all Members to review rule XVII to gain a
better understanding of the proper rules of decorum expected
of them, and especially: to avoid ``personalities'' in debate
with respect to references to other Members, the Senate, and
the President; to address the Chair while standing and only
during, and not beyond, the time recognized, and not to
address the television or other imagined audience; to refrain
from passing between the Chair and a Member speaking, or
directly in front of a Member speaking from the well; to
refrain from smoking in the Chamber; to deactivate any
audible ring of wireless telephones when entering the
Chamber; to wear appropriate business attire in the Chamber;
and to generally display the same degree of respect to the
Chair and other Members that every Member is due.
The Chair would like all Members to be on notice that the
Chair intends to strictly enforce time limitations on debate.
Furthermore, the Chair has the authority to immediately
interrupt Members in debate who transgress rule XVII by
failing to avoid ``personalities'' in debate with respect to
references to the Senate, the President, and other Members,
rather than wait for Members to complete their remarks.
Finally, it is not in order to speak disrespectfully of the
Speaker; and under the precedents the sanctions for such
violations transcend the ordinary requirements for timeliness
of challenges. This separate treatment is recorded in volume
2 of Hinds' Precedents, at section 1248 and was reiterated on
January 19, 1995.

6. Conduct of Votes by Electronic Device

The Speaker's policy announced on January 4, 1995, with
respect to the conduct of electronic votes will continue in
the 110th Congress with modifications as follows.
As Members are aware, clause 2(a) of rule XX provides that
Members shall have not less than 15 minutes in which to
answer an ordinary record vote or quorum call. The rule
obviously establishes 15 minutes as a minimum. Still, with
the cooperation of the Members, a vote can easily be
completed in that time. The events of October 30, 1991, stand
out as proof of this point. On that occasion, the House was
considering a bill in the Committee of the Whole under a
special rule that placed an overall time limit on the
amendment process, including the time consumed by record
votes. The Chair announced, and then strictly enforced, a
policy of closing electronic votes as soon as possible after
the guaranteed period of 15 minutes. Members appreciated and
cooperated with the Chair's enforcement of the policy on that
occasion.
The Chair desires that the example of October 30, 1991, be
made the regular practice of the House. To that end, the
Chair enlists the assistance of all Members in avoiding the
unnecessary loss of time in conducting the business of the
House. The Chair encourages all Members to depart for the
Chamber promptly upon the appropriate bell and light signal.
As in recent Congresses, the cloakrooms should not forward to
the Chair requests to hold a vote by electronic device, but
should simply apprise inquiring Members of the time remaining
on the voting clock. Members should not rely on signals
relayed from outside the Chamber to assume that votes will be
held open until they arrive in the Chamber. Members will be
given a reasonable amount of time in which to accurately
record their votes. No occupant of the Chair would prevent a
Member who is in the Well before the announcement of the
result from casting his or her vote.

7. Use of Handouts on House Floor

The Speaker's policy announced on September 27, 1995, which
was prompted by a misuse of handouts on the House floor and
made at the bipartisan request of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, will continue in the 110th Congress. All
handouts distributed on or adjacent to the House floor by
Members during House proceedings must bear the name of the
Member authorizing their distribution. In addition, the
content of those materials must comport with standards of
propriety applicable to words spoken in debate or inserted in
the Record. Failure to comply with this admonition may
constitute a breach of decorum and may give rise to a
question of privilege.
The Chair would also remind Members that, pursuant to
clause 5 of rule IV, staff is prohibited from engaging in
efforts in the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto to
influence Members with regard to the legislation being
amended. Staff cannot distribute handouts.
In order to enhance the quality of debate in the House, the
Chair would ask Members to minimize the use of handouts.

8. Use of Electronic Equipment on House Floor

The Speaker's policy announced on January 27, 2000, as
modified by the change in clause 5 of rule XVII in the 108th
Congress, will continue in the 110th Congress. All Members
and staff are reminded of the absolute prohibition contained
in clause 5 of rule XVII against the use of a wireless
telephone or personal computer upon the floor of the House at
any time.
The Chair requests all Members and staff wishing to receive
or send wireless telephone messages to do so outside of the
Chamber, and to deactivate, which means to turn off, any
audible ring of wireless phones before entering the Chamber.
To this end, the Chair insists upon the cooperation of all
Members and staff and instructs the Sergeant-at-Arms,
pursuant to clause 3(a) of rule II and clause 5 of rule XVII,
to enforce this prohibition.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain five 1-minute speeches on each
side.

____________________

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

(Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Speaker, the administration has turned a projected
10-year, $5.6 billion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. Over
the past 6 years, America's debt has climbed 50 percent to more than
$28,000 per person. It is so bad that this administration has borrowed
more money from foreign nations than all previous 42 U.S. Presidents
combined. That is the fiscal mess that we inherit from the 109th
Congress.
We believe it is time that we finally get our fiscal house in order.
Today, we will restore the pay-as-you-go rules that were instrumental
to the budget surpluses we experienced in the early 1990s. Pay-as-you-
go budgeting with no new deficit spending is a key first step. This
will reverse the budget deficits that are currently passing billions of

[[Page 275]]

dollars in debt to our children and our grandchildren.
It was wrong to eliminate pay-as-you-go in 2002. We need to begin to
treat our Federal budget in the way that working families treat their
budgets, and pay-as-you-go is a good first step.
Madam Speaker, I hope that this House can act in a bipartisan fashion
to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington.

____________________

OLE NUMBER 48--GERALD FORD

(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, when President Gerald Ford played football
for Michigan, he was the team's center on offense. He touched the ball
on every play. The play could not begin without Gerald Ford snapping
the ball. Others on the team, however, the quarterback, running back
and receivers, made all the headlines, but that was fine with Gerald
Ford. As the center he was neither on the right nor the left but in the
middle of the charge to move the ball over the goal line.
Gerald Ford and Michigan were successful. Michigan won two national
championships. Gerald Ford was offered contracts with NFL teams, such
as the Detroit Lions. He chose law school instead, served in World War
II, fought in that great war, and was a Member of this very House.
When he became President, ole No. 48, President Ford, took the ball
again, but this time on the field of American discontent about
corruption and war. He stayed in the center and once again was
successful in moving Team America across the goal line of healing and
hope.
However, when entering a room, President Ford always preferred the
band not play the traditional Hail to the Chief but, rather, the
Michigan fight song.
Thank you, President Ford, for playing ball for Team America.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

BRING THE TROOPS HOME

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, Congress as a coequal branch of
government must be prepared to act to bring our troops home from Iraq.
Congress must have an exit plan and take steps to implement it.
President Bush has every intention of keeping the troops in Iraq
through the end of his term. However, the money is there to bring the
troops home now. If Congress appropriates more money for Iraq, the war
will escalate and more troops and innocent civilians will die. The
American people voted for a new direction. That direction is out of
Iraq. Let us rescue our troops. Let us rescue a domestic agenda. Let us
reverse policies which have created chaos, massive civilian casualties
and destruction in Iraq. Let us reunite the community of nations in the
cause of stabilizing Iraq.
The U.S. cannot do this as occupiers or as agents of contracting and
oil interests. We can do this only once we have stated our intention to
end the occupation. Next week I will be presenting to this Congress a
workable plan which can enable our Nation to bring the troops home,
assure an international peacekeeping force and begin to close this
perilous chapter in our Nation's history.

____________________

CONGRESS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK 5 DAYS A WEEK TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER

(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, as Democrats take control of Congress this
week, the American people are going to see some stark differences in
how we run this institution compared to the way it has been run for the
last 6 years.
First, the House is actually going to be in session 5 days a week
most weeks. Last year, the Republican Congress was known as the do-
nothing Congress because it met fewer days than any Congress in 6
decades.
Not only is this House going to be in session more often, it is
actually going to do its job while we are here. For years, Republican
Congresses refused to conduct proper oversight of the Bush
administration, instead choosing to rubber-stamp its policies.
Democrats take oversight responsibility seriously, and are prepared
to hold this administration accountable for its successes and its
failures. In hearings, we're going to ask administration officials some
tough questions so that we can make government work again for all
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when our Nation is at war and with so many
domestic and international issues that must be addressed, the American
people rightly want us here doing our job. The new Democratic Congress
will not disappoint.
On a personal note, as one of the new freshmen elected here, America,
you have a great freshman class, a great deal of talent, and I think
you can feel proud of your new Speaker, Madam Pelosi.

____________________

HOUSE DEMOCRATS PLAN TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. SOLIS. Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and buenos dias.
You know, folks, this is the people's House, but for much of the last
6 years, House Republican leaders chose to run it with an iron hand--
one where only the voices of the special interests were heard in this
House. Opposing voices were always ignored.
House Democrats vowed to restore democracy in this House and today we
live up to that promise by committing to a fair and democratic process
and the end of the 2-day workweek. Our proposal specifically prohibits
holding votes open for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome. We
all remember the Medicare prescription drug vote. I do. I remember
staying here in the wee morning hours, 3 hours, when that vote was held
open in 2003 so Republican leaders could twist enough arms to win their
vote. That is not how democracy is supposed to work, and our rules
change would prevent that from ever happening.
We are also going to give Members more time to read bills so that
they actually know what they are reading. It should be par for the
course to get a bill of a thousand pages and then begin to vote on it.
We need to have more time to review that.
Today, Mr. Speaker, democracy returns to the House.

____________________

DEMOCRATIC AGENDA ON HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, this week with pride the new Democratic
House opens this congressional session by bringing ethics reform
measures to the House floor that will sever the unhealthy ties between
lawmakers and lobbyists.
We made a promise to the American people that we would drain the
swamp of unethical behavior here in Washington, and we begin this
Congress by living up to that promise by banning travel and gifts from
lobbyists, getting tough on special interest earmarks, and ending the
abusive processes that have destroyed democracy.
The American people sent us all a message last November. They want us
to work for them and not for the special interests. I would hope that
our agenda for reform would garner the support of both Democrats and
Republicans. We should all be interested in policies that will ensure
that the outrageous abuses of power that have taken place over the last
couple of years do not continue.
These important reforms are only the beginning.

[[Page 276]]

____________________

RULES OF THE HOUSE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stupak). Pursuant to section 4 of House
Resolution 5, proceedings will now resume on the resolution (H. Res. 6)
adopting the rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th
Congress.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Thursday,
January 4, 2007, the portion of the divided question comprising title
II had been disposed of.
Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 5, the portion of the
divided question comprising title III is now debatable for 60 minutes.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

{time} 0945

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here in the first hours of the 110th Congress we rise to
restore decorum and civility to what has been from its founding the
greatest deliberative institution. In doing so, we open a new chapter
in the history of the House of Representatives, one that is dignified.
Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loud and clear this past
November, and I am proud to say that the Democratic majority is
responding to that call. This legislation marks a new beginning. The
Democratic reform package, H. Res. 6, enacts long overdue congressional
reform: restoring an open government, an honest government, an ethical
government; and it marks the restoration of the American people's
priorities to the people's House. It is my hope that by enacting these
changes we will be able to change the tone of how we conduct business
in this Chamber and with each other.
I recall a time in the House of Representatives and not too long ago
when Members had friends on both sides of the aisle. Our children
played together, they got to know each other, they became friends. Our
families ate dinner together. We treated each other as friends and
colleagues, and debate on the House floor reflected mutual respect even
when we disagreed and an understanding that we all have a role to play
in the legislative process.
We are here today to say that this sense of civility and decorum is
not dead. This institution is too great to permit any tarnish of its
honor to become permanent or to allow the slights of yesterday to
interfere with our efforts to build a better tomorrow. Civility can
return to this great institution with the right style of leadership.
As we turn here and now in the first hours of the 110th Congress,
part of that process is making sure that House rules can prevent the
abuses of prior Congresses. This is the overarching intent of H. Res.
6. In particular, there are several provisions in title III of that
resolution that will begin to restore civility and decorum to the
legislative process and which will honor this Chamber's place as the
people's House by making us more accountable to the people who sent us
here.
The first provision of title III prohibits floor votes from being
held open for more than 15 minutes for the sole purpose of changing the
outcome of a vote. Voting is a Member's core responsibility and our
primary means of giving voice to the view of our constituents. This
reform is important and long overdue.
The other two provisions address the handling of conference reports,
with the goal to end backroom deals for special interests. In the 110th
Congress, conference committees will be conducted in an open and fair
manner, and conference reports containing last-minute provisions will
not be considered on the House floor.
A Chamber worthy of the title the people's House is one which
conducts its business within the people's view. By making this reform
package the very first item considered in this Congress, our new
leadership is sending a strong message to all of the American people,
Democrat, Republican, Independent, that we have heard the message you
have sent us, demanding honest and ethical leadership, and we are
heeding that call.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by, now since I have the first
opportunity to formally see my California colleague here on the floor,
to congratulate her and all of the members of the new majority. I have
congratulated Ms. Slaughter and of course Ms. Pelosi, and now I join in
extending congratulations to Ms. Matsui for her move into the majority,
and to say as I did yesterday that I anxiously look forward to working
in a bipartisan way as was said by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner
here yesterday.
I believe it is absolutely imperative that we meet the demand that
was put forth by the American people in the November election. The
message that I received from that election was that they want us to
work together, they want us to solve their problems. Clearly, there
needs to be a clash of ideas which was envisaged by James Madison, and
I believe that that is something that we can't forget, because we are
not supposed to pursue what I like to call the Rodney King view of the
world: can't we all just get along. The fact of the matter is we do
need to recognize that there are disparate views and they need to be
voiced on this House floor.
Now, the question is, can we in fact do that and at the same time
maintain civility? And I think that is what title III is all about
here. It is titled ``civility'' and it is something that I have always
prided myself on, and I will say that I am saddened that it is
something that has been often lacking in this House.
Frankly, as I have seen the debate take place even yesterday, I was
concerned that some of the statements made would indicate a lack of
civility, and that is all I am going to say about it. I hope very much
that the title ``civility'' used for this title III is one that is
recognized by Members on both sides of the aisle.
Let me get into some of the specifics now, Mr. Speaker, if I might.
In February of last year, almost a year ago, Ms. Slaughter, the then-
ranking minority member of the Rules Committee, and all of the members
of the Rules Committee joined in introducing House Resolution 686. It
is a resolution which called for virtually all of the things that my
colleague, Ms. Matsui, outlined are very important for us to pursue:
openness, transparency, disclosure, making sure that we meet our
obligation to vote here on the House floor, that we have it done in the
light of day.
The concern that I have is that what has happened here is we have
unfortunately gotten a package which does not have the kind of
enforcement mechanisms that were envisaged by H. Res. 686 as introduced
by the members of the Rules Committee in the last Congress, and I
believe unfortunately it really is not reflective of anything other
than sort of the spirit of what it was they were talking about. And the
spirit is of things that we all can agree on. I am supportive of those.
The fact is when they were in the minority, Resolution 686 calls for
consultation and agreement with the minority. Now that they are in the
majority, unfortunately, this measure does not in any way reflect the
need to have consultation with the minority.
For example, on this notion of keeping votes open beyond the 15-
minute period of time, when they were in the minority they called for
it to only take place if they had consultation with the minority. Well,
unfortunately, this measure does not call for that. And what I am
reminded of as I look at these items which touch on the issues that
were raised in Resolution 686, I am reminded of again the experience
that I had in the past on this when I moved from minority status to
majority status 12 years ago. We had something known as the Contract
With America. Some may remember that. What we said was that there would
be 10 items that we would bring to the floor and we would have up or
down votes on those items because, frankly, we were denied the chance
for many, many years to

[[Page 277]]

consider them. They were items that were supported by broad-based
backing of the American people.
Frankly, at the end of the day, President Clinton, who was President
at that time, signed over 60 percent of the measures that were
incorporated in the Contract With America. What we did is we outlined
in detail what that would consist of. We said it would be considered
under an open amendment process, and that is exactly what we did. It is
exactly what we did with those measures that came forward.
So, Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately with this measure have not seen the
same kind of reflection of the goals that were outlined by the then-
minority in this measure, and I thought I would take a moment just to
go through a few of those items specifically and say that,
unfortunately, this package is not what they called for.
Now, in the package that we had introduced in 686, it called for a
requirement that conference reports contain an itemized list of any
provisions in violation of the Scope rule. That is not included in this
measure. It said that a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from
reporting martial law rules could not be in order. That is not included
here.
A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from waiving points of order
against the conference report were a serious violation of the Scope
Rule, or additions or deletions made after final agreement. That is not
included here.
Another provision in Ms. Slaughter's resolution as introduced in
February of last year: a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from
waiving points of order against a conference report where the minority
party managers of the House were not allowed to fully participate in
the conference. Well, they of course said they want to have this
happen, but the kind of specificity and enforcement mechanisms that
were outlined in the Slaughter Resolution, H. Res. 686, introduced in
February of last year, not included in this measure.
A rule permitting consideration of a conference report only if a roll
call vote in open meeting was held on its final version and the results
included the accompanying joint explanatory statement of managers.
Well, sounds great, we are all for that, but that wasn't included in
this resolution that we are now considering.
A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from calling up a rule within
24 hours of reporting it. Well, everybody talked about that. We know
that on the opening-day rules package that we considered, we received
it maybe 19 hours before we brought it up or something like that, but
it clearly was in the violation of the 24 hours that was insisted upon
by the then-minority.
A rule requiring the Speaker of the House to publish in the
Congressional Record a log of all voting activity occurring after the
first 30 minutes of any recorded vote whose maximum time for voting
exceeds 30 minutes. That is not included in here at all.
A rule prohibiting suspensions costing more than $100 million. I
don't see that in here at all.
A rule requiring the Speaker of the House to allow an equal number of
bills and resolutions sponsored by majority and minority parties under
suspension.
A repeal of the Gephardt rule. A rule requiring a 24-hour layover of
unanimous consent requests.
A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from reporting a rule unless
at least one minority party member of the committee is allowed to offer
an amendment to it.
Now, again, I know that we are hearing words from the new majority
that they want to do all these things, but when they introduced House
Resolution 686, they made it very clear that they had to have
enforcement mechanisms and that they were going to provide guarantees
of minority rights. Unfortunately, while the word ``civility'' sounds
great, this measure falls way, way short of that.
So I again go back to when we went from minority to majority and I
looked at the fact that we were able to maintain our promise, we were
able to keep our word. And I am very proud of that fact. The thing that
troubles me, while I am supportive of what we are trying to do here, is
that it does not comply with the promises and the commitments and the
vision and the goals that were set forth in February in House
Resolution 686 as was introduced by the then-minority.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments so that all Members may
keep in mind the heart of what we are doing today.
These two days of debate on the House floor mark a historic moment
for reform of the people's House. The American people grew tired of a
Republican Congress too unethical to conduct its business in the light
of day and too deaf to hear the people's complaint. And so this past
November the people exercised their right to vote in order to send a
message. It was a mandate for change, to restore civility, decorum, and
ethical behavior to Congress. Democrats are acting swiftly in response
to their call.
When it passes the House later today, the Democratic ethics package
will be the greatest reform of this institution in history. There will
be no more corporate jet travel paid by special interests, no more roll
call votes held open for hours in the middle of the night so that
Members could be arm twisted on the floor, no more anonymous earmarks,
no more last-minute provisions slipped in conference reports.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic reform package is far tougher
than anything Republicans ever proposed or enacted, and it will restore
integrity to this sacred institution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman, our new Member from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).

{time} 1000

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Together, we have a lot of work to do: To help working families get
ahead, restore America's standing in the world, and bring our budget
back in balance. Making progress is what our constituents in 435
districts around this country have elected us to do.
To be sure, our differences will be intensely debated. However, our
mutual obligations is to do everything we can to move our country
forward by confronting directly and immediately the challenges before
us. To succeed in the job our constituents sent us here to do, we must
lay out rules in a regular order that Members can count on. These
ground rules will not guarantee an outcome, but they will set out a
framework where we, as an institution, make progress and serve the
public.
That is why the Democratic leadership embraces three very simple,
straightforward principles that will help us succeed. As the Member
from California has laid out, we set out today to establish a regular
civility in this body.
Civility, it is mutual respect, really, requires straightforward
ground rules to guide debate. It requires adherence to rules that apply
to all. Each of us will know and be able to assure the citizens who
elected us when it comes to votes in this, their representative body:
Members will have time to read what they are voting on; Members will
have time to vote, but votes will not be held open for the purpose of
changing the outcome; and Members will vote on conference reports that
are the ones agreed upon by the conferees, not ones altered after the
fact.
These rules, applied to all, will help us do the work of the people
we represent. Our debates at times will be intense, as they should be,
but we must strive to have our debates on the merits. The rules we
propose for your consideration are basic. They are rules that apply to
legislators in Vermont where I am from, and probably rules that your
own legislators take for granted: Time to read and review before
voting, timely voting procedures, and considering conference reports as
signed.
Mr. Speaker, I served 13 years in the Vermont legislature, sometimes
in the minority and sometimes in the majority. We in Vermont were proud
of the

[[Page 278]]

legislative process and standards that we set. Those in the majority
couldn't do things simply because they had the power. Minority voices
were heard, Members were kept informed, and our legislative process was
respected. We did have intense debates on the issues, but more often
than not, not always, at the end of the day, good ideas were considered
and we were able to move Vermont ahead.
These changes that we present for your consideration today are not
just about process, they are about passing good, substantive
legislation.
These new rules to establish civility to this body are essential for
Congress to do the work of the American people and to build the trust
of those we serve.
We face looming challenges in America, to the security of our
families and to the security of our country. And nobody and no party
has a monopoly on the good ideas required to steer us forward. The
simple and straightforward rules of engagement will help all of us do
that.
Yesterday, the minority leader, in handing over the gavel to the new
Speaker, was graceful and was wise when he reminded us that we can have
disagreements without being disagreeable. Both the Speaker and the
minority leader stated on our behalf what we all know to be true: All
of us are here for the common purpose, to make America a better place.
There is and must be room for all of our voices to be heard to achieve
our common purpose.
The rules we propose will help us do that. How? By establishing very
clear ground rules that apply to all, the majority as well as the
minority, to every Member, committee chairs and ranking members, House
veterans and House freshmen. One and all alike.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reminding my California
colleague that yesterday we passed the ethics package about which she
spoke, indicating that we would be voting on it later today. We voted
on that yesterday. It has already gone into effect, I am very happy to
say. And we did it with very strong bipartisan support.
I am proud that the ethics reform legislation, of course, was based
on and incorporated most of the items that were already passed in the
House last year. Again, a year ago this month, Speaker Hastert and I
stood in the well and we outlined our call for ethics and lobbying
reform, bringing about the kind of accountability and transparency and
disclosure, calling for the ban on gifts and dealing with the travel
and all of these problems that were out there. We recognize that they
are there in a bipartisan way, and yesterday we voted that out in a
strong bipartisanship way.
I am very pleased to see the distinguished Chair of the Rules
Committee here, and I will again, as I did yesterday, extend
congratulations. And, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of civility that we
are pursuing, I think it is very important for us to debate these
issues, and I would like to engage my distinguished new Chair in a
colloquy, if I might.
Mr. Speaker, as I look at the resolution that is before us, the thing
that I find most troubling as we focus on the issue of civility is the
fact that those items that I outlined that were included in H. Res. 686
that was introduced on February 16, 2005, which called for the litany
of items, and I can go through them again quickly: A requirement that
conference reports contain an itemized list of any provisions in
violation of the scope rule; a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee
from reporting martial law rules; a rule prohibiting the Rules
Committee from waiving points of order against a conference report with
a serious violation; and it goes on for basically two pages.
What I would like to ask my distinguished Chair is why it is that
those items that were incorporated in the base of H. Res. 686, the
commitment that was made by the then-minority as to what would be done
if they were to move to majority, are not included in this title that
we are considering here, and not, in any way, included in the opening
day rules package.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think, Mr. Dreier, my good friend, that we have done
a remarkable job considering we have been sworn in less than 24 hours.
We are, by no means, through when we finish the 100 hours, and we
will be moving toward, again, a more just democracy in this House in
the future. We have never said this is all of it.
Frankly, everybody has known what is in this package since we first
unveiled it at the Library of Congress last January.
In addition, many of our colleagues in the House on both sides of the
aisle are already on record through votes on many of the things that we
want to bring up. Certainly minimum wage, absolutely stem cell
research, and what we want to do on ending the war. And the war itself
is not addressed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say I have
been supportive of stem cell research, and I have supported the minimum
wage increase. That is not what I am talking about here.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of our civil debate, which I think is very
important, we are talking about the opening day rules package which is
going to set forth, Mr. Speaker, the guidelines around which we will
consider all of these items.
Now I would ask my friend, am I correct from inferring from the
statement she just made that there is a commitment, a commitment that
as we proceed forward to modify the rules of the House to include those
items in H. Res. 686, which were really the cornerstone of the package
that was introduced by Mrs. Slaughter and the other then-minority
members of the Rules Committee, which guarantee these rights to the
minority that they believed were so critically important when they were
in the minority; and, unfortunately, are not included in the package.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. You really liked those, did you, my colleague? You
thought those were good reforms, the ones you are talking about?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the spirit of civil
debate, let me say that I believe these measures that were authored by
Members of the new majority as being critical rights that the minority
should have, that those Members in the majority who believed them to be
so important should obviously stand by them.
All I am asking is that the promise that was made in the 109th
Congress by the then-Members of the minority about what they believed
minority rights should be should be, in fact, implemented. Because,
unfortunately, while we can talk about these great things, when you go
down the line seriatim, looking at each individual item, making sure
that we do have Members of the minority guaranteed to have a right in
conference committees to be there, bringing an end to considering
measures without a 24-hour waiting period, these kinds of rights that
the then-minority believed were imperative for the minority to have
are, unfortunately, not included in this package. This is what I find
to be very troubling.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished Chair.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am sure you recall the time in the Rules Committee
when we took this package and broke it down vote by vote, and the
majority, led by you, voted down every single one of them. This seems
somewhat hypocritical to me.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time so I might respond, these were not my
proposals, Mr. Speaker. These were not my proposals. These were
proposals put forward by Members of the new majority, and they were the
commitments, the promises, and the obligations that they made as far as
enforcement of minority rights that they believed to be so important.
That was the platform on which they ran in November, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that what we should do is do all that we can to simply
point to the fact that this title III on civility, which is supposed to
be reflective of these notions, is in no way emblematic of H. Res. 686
that was introduced by the Members.

[[Page 279]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Slaughter to
respond.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me say, just watch us, Mr. Dreier. I want to
reiterate what I said last night: We have no intention of keeping our
foot on your necks the way you did us. And you are just going to have
to watch us and see. But you have voted against every one of these,
along with many other things.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairman of Rules Committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and
thank her for her wonderful job.
Mr. Speaker, today we are taking up the third title of the new
Democrat rules package which will restore civility to this body.
The House was always intended to be a place where civil discourse and
the courteous exchange of ideas would be the normal state of affairs.
But referring to this portion of our rules package as the
``civility'' title is actually a civil term for what we are talking
about: The restoration of democracy itself in the House of
Representatives.
Over the last several years, parliamentary procedure has broken down
here, and I don't know anybody who can deny that. The standard
practices of this body, carefully designed rules that are fundamental
to our democratic process, fell by the wayside. Far too often, they
have been shunned and ignored whenever doing so fit the needs of the
former majority.
At the end of 2003, the House took up a Medicare prescription drug
bill. It is a perfect example of the broken legislation produced by a
broken process.
Instead of proceeding in an open and transparent manner, conference
discussions were held behind closed doors for months, excluding all
Democrats. On one occasion, Democratic conferee Charles Rangel and
Marion Berry, men who have spent their lives and careers fighting for
the good of the Nation, were not let into the conference room and were
physically prevented from coming inside, even though they had been
appointed to be there. Why? Because the lobbyists were in the room. The
lobbyists were writing the bills, not the Members of Congress, and
certainly not the minority who had no fingerprint at all on the
Medicare prescription drug bill.
That abuse of secrecy was for a good reason: It was bad for the
country and the Republican conferees didn't want anybody to find out
about it. But one group that did learn of its dangerous provisions was
the Republican conference, and when the bill was brought to the floor
on November 21, a significant number of principled Republicans refused
to vote for it.

{time} 1015

And so once again civil and democratic procedures were denied. The
Republican leadership had lost the vote after the standard time
allotted; so they simply kept it open. I have never seen anything like
that in my years in the House. There were Cabinet Secretaries all over
the floor. There were strangers or people we didn't even know on the
floor as for over 3 hours they worked on people who were in tears, many
of them, to make them vote for that bill. There was also a blanket
liability exemption for drug manufacturers inserted into the language
without the approval of the conference about 5 hours after the
conference had been signed off on, and so absolutely the process was
broken. According to reports, the President of the Senate simply walked
over to the House side and inserted 40 pages into the bill. It amounted
to a multi-billion dollar gift to drug companies.
Mr. Frist's liability exemption had been brought up during the
conference process, but it was rejected, just like the Medicare
legislation of 2003 had, in truth, been rejected by this House. But in
each case, Members of the Republican leadership wanted something they
couldn't get through the democratic process, and so they ignored the
process. By doing so, they did more than pass flawed legislation. They
undermined our democracy itself.
This democracy is a system designed to prevent abuses like these from
occurring, a system constructed and improved over two centuries so that
bad legislation could be exposed and voted down.
If we profess to care about democracy, the proof will be in the
process. And, Mr. Speaker, we must save the democratic process in this
House. How hypocritical is it that we try to spread democracy to other
parts of the world when we disallow it in the American House of
Representatives?
The civility portion of the Democratic rules package before us today
will prevent the abuses of recent years from happening again. It will
prohibit the Speaker from holding open votes just so the outcome can be
changed. Democracy is the art of compromise, not the art of coercion.
We are also going to insist that conference committees operate in an
open and fair manner and that House conferees sign final conference
papers at one time and in one place. In other words, they have to be
present at the conference to do so. Never again will the esteemed
Members of this body on either side of the aisle be locked out of this
democracy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it does not go too far to say that
about half of the American public was disenfranchised. Because of the
closeness of the majority and minority, we left half of America out of
the room.
This package prohibits the consideration of any conference report
that was altered after it was signed by the conferees. If a conference
can't agree on a legislative provision, it should not be in the
conference report, period. If the Members of this body believe in the
power of their ideas, there will be no need for tactics like those we
have seen of late. An open, democratic, and civil process will promote
good ideas and good legislation and will eliminate corruption and
influence peddling.
In this new Congress and with this new rules package, we are standing
up for our system of government and the needs of the people it serves
and bringing back the government that they think they had, up until
this last November. Democrats are going to return civility and common
sense to this body, and I encourage everyone on both sides of the aisle
to join us.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, I am very enthusiastic about this return to civility, and
I am very proud of engaging in civil debate on a regular basis. And I
thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter,
for engaging in debate with me on this issue once again.
And I would say that as I listened to her prepared statement, I was
struck with, once again, how the notion of not keeping votes open for a
long period of time is an admirable one. It is a great one. But guess
what, Mr. Speaker. There is not one single item in this package that
guarantees enforcement. In fact, Speaker Pelosi introduced her
legislation, H.R. 4682. I remember very well looking at that
legislation. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you exactly what it said. It said
that if a vote is kept open beyond a 20-minute period of time, there
had to be consultation with the minority. Now, that is not something I
proposed. That was the proposal of Speaker Pelosi. Now, the sad thing
is that in this measure there is no enforcement mechanism.
Now, of course, people are busy. They come over here for a 15-minute
vote. They would like to have it take place within 20 minutes. We are
hearing that votes won't go beyond that period of time for the sole
purpose of changing a Member's vote. But, again, there is no
enforcement mechanism. And, again, the enforcement mechanism was not my
proposal. It is a proposal that the then-minority offered. But now that
they are in the majority, they just decide to say, well, we want to
keep this process going and we want to keep doing it, but we are not
going to consult with the minority. So, again, those aren't my
proposals. Those are their proposals.
Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to
my very good friend from Marietta, Georgia, a former member of the
Rules Committee, who is very thoughtful on these issues, Dr. Gingrey.

[[Page 280]]

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the majority in
regard to title III and the overall civility tone as it pertains, of
course, to conference committees and having the opportunity for Members
of the minority conference team to be present, not to have things added
at the last minute after all the conferees signatories have read the
report and designate it as complete and then add something at the
midnight hour. All of these things are good.
I was in the Georgia State Senate in the minority, and I remember the
Democratic president of the senate appointing me to my first conference
committee. I was thrilled. It was an issue on which I had worked very
hard with the majority, and I couldn't understand why I was never
called to a conference committee. And then at the sine die hour, all of
a sudden this conference report was stuck under my nose and asked for
my signature without even reading it, and I was absolutely appalled at
that. So I commend the majority for wanting to clean that up, and I
support it.
But I agree with my former chairman, now ranking member, of the Rules
Committee in regard to the argument that was proffered just a minute
ago that it doesn't really go quite far enough. But let me spend a
little time continuing to make the point that he just made in regard to
this issue of holding votes open.
Now, during the last 2 years, during almost the entire 109th
Congress, after we passed an historic prescription drug benefit for 38
million seniors who had been waiting for 45 years because the now
majority, when they were in control, could never deliver on that
promise, all we heard for 2 years were these complaints of, well, you
held the vote open 3 hours and 28 minutes. You were breaking arms of a
former Member from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and others, and it was
inappropriate, how appalling that was.
And now maybe you are right. Maybe holding the vote open for that
purpose is inappropriate when the concerns of our constituents might be
that when a Member in good conscience is opposed or in favor of a
particular controversial piece of legislation and his or her vote is
not going your way and so you get him in a corner or a back room and
say, hey, what can we do for you? Or maybe what can we do to you if you
don't vote with us? Like removing you, a good productive Member, from a
certain select committee, or maybe we promise to put you, who is not
quite qualified, on a good select committee that you have been wanting
and pushing for for a number of years, and all of a sudden you grant
them some earmark that is absolutely egregious, maybe almost as bad as
the ``bridge to nowhere.''
So I would say to my friends in the majority, why the modifier
``sole'' purpose? If you really believe this, as the gentleman from
California just pointed out, take out that modifier. Let us not hold
votes open beyond 15 minutes for the purpose of breaking an arm and
trying to change someone's mind when they in good conscience have had
plenty of time to consider the bill, to think about it, indeed, maybe
even pray about it. I think it is inappropriate, and I agree with you.
But let's get serious about this. Let's make sure we really change it
and it is not just some window dressing to kind of make your argument
that you have been trying to make over the last 2 years. Let us take
out the modifier, close the loophole, get serious about this, and that
is real reform.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I yield
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for
the House rules, as we are dealing with them today, but I am also
calling for an independent investigating arm for the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my full support to these changes to
our House Rules.
These rules are the foundation that will govern how this body
operates, but also serves as a reflection of our collective values and
character.
I have served almost 6 years on the House Ethics Committee.
I have seen more investigations than I care to in the last 6 years of
Members on both sides of the aisle.
These rule changes should restore a tone of civility and honesty in
this chamber and that is why I am supporting this package and urge all
my colleagues to do the same.
However, I would like to raise an issue that is not contained in this
package today.
I strongly believe that the House Ethics Committee needs an
independent investigative office.
Currently, my colleagues on the Ethics Committee and I are tasked
with determining whether rumors and innuendos have any merit to launch
investigations that at times bring disgrace to this body and end the
careers of our colleagues.
We are the Court of Congress, yet we serve as both the investigators
and the judges of our colleagues. This is no easy task.
Those of us on this Committee have accepted this position and stand
poised to enforce the Rules of the House and preserve the integrity of
this body.
However, it would be beneficial to the Members of the Ethics
Committee and this House if we had an independent investigation arm so
we may have unbiased, thorough information regarding any accusation of
impropriety by a Member of this body.
I believe this would help remove any partisan sentiments regarding
origination of investigations and may help restore America's faith in
our ability to enforce our rules.
With this information the Members of the Committee would then
determine whether or not there is sufficient information to further the
investigation, or take action on the issue before the Committee.
Allowing an independent investigating office to begin investigating
then bring information to the Ethics Committee would not make our job
easier, but it would help us have this nonpartisan information to do
our job better.
I strongly support the changes proposed today, but I believe it is
necessary for us to begin a dialogue on creating an Independent
Investigative Office to serve the House Ethics Committee and the House
of Representatives.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding.
Of the many concerns my constituents had as they looked at the
Congress over the last few years, one of the most important and
troubling had to do with the minimal amount of time we were repeatedly
given to address important pieces of legislation. Indeed, it seemed
often that the more important the legislation before us, the less time
we had to read it.
My colleague from Georgia talked momentarily ago about the Medicare
prescription drug benefit. During debate on that bill, there were
important elements of it that no one seemed to understand. I asked
repeatedly if people could explain it. I was told by one speaker on the
then-majority side, You will have to ask somebody on the Ways and Means
Committee; I am only on the Rules Committee. But we all voted on it. We
voted on things repeatedly that we had not been given a chance to read,
that were not allowed for amendment, and that was wrong. And I commend
our leadership for trying to set a new tone, and I welcome the support
of our colleagues on the minority side as they commit to trying to work
with us.
Included in this rules package is a commitment by our leadership to
allow adequate time for consideration of legislation before it comes to
a vote. The situation here is this: we ought to make sure that we can
look our constituents and our colleagues in the eye and say that before
we voted on this legislation, we had ample time for ourselves and our
staff to study it and we knew what was in it.
For too long lobbyists have written legislation. On some of the
legislation I have talked about before, I had lobbyists calling me to
say I should vote for a bill, the text of which was not even available
to the Members themselves.
Members of Congress have the responsibility to give themselves and
one another time to study legislation, to debate it, to hear from both
sides, because there are good ideas on both sides and, frankly, there
are bad ideas on both sides. So let's work together in this new
Congress to set a new tone and a new precedent and a new practice.

[[Page 281]]

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to engage in colloquy with my friend. I wonder if the
gentleman has had an opportunity to look at what we consider to be the
opening-day rules package that we are considering.
He has talked about, Mr. Speaker, some very important provisions. I
believe that the 24-hour layover idea which was propounded by the then-
Members of the minority is an important one. It is not guaranteed here;
so it is not provided.
Number two, if you look at title V of the measure that is before us,
title V provides 5 minutes of debate on five closed rules. The Rules
Committee will not even be giving the minority the opportunity to have
its amendments defeated in the Rules Committee, and we are not going
through the committee process at all.
Now, I will acknowledge that the items that we are going to be
addressing, a majority of which I support, are very important for us to
proceed with, and an argument has been made that this was debated and
discussed in the last Congress. Well, look at the tremendous number of
new Members of the House that have come in, especially on the majority
side. They are denied any opportunity to participate in this process at
all. So as I hear my friend talk about, yes, we need to proceed in a
civil manner, and I am all for that, I believe we need to proceed with
fairness. I believe these things are all very important. It is just
unfortunate that the facts are not reflected in the rhetoric that we
are getting on the need for civility and openness and debate.
If my friend would like to respond, I would be happy to yield to him.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond. And let me say I
acknowledge the gentleman's concern and I share it to a significant
degree. Personally, I would prefer that there had been more time and
more opportunity for debate in some of these measures and more
opportunity for input from the minority side.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.

{time} 1030

What I would say is that based on the fact that we have never before,
in the 230-year history of this republic, we have never had the
greatest body known to man come forward with five closed rules in an
opening day package denying Members an opportunity to participate in
any way.
So that is why I would argue this notion that we are beginning with a
new tone, we are going to have an openness and all, is, in fact, not
reflected in what we are facing in the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman's point. I would just echo the
sentiments of the gentleman from New York earlier.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us in these early opening days of
this session is legislation that has been debated extensively and been
available extensively over the past couple of months, indeed, some of
it was passed in the last Congress. I would suggest that we have had
time to look at this.
I would concur, and I will say that in the future, when future
measures come up, especially measures that are new to this body, I will
work very vigorously to ensure that the minority has adequate time to
study, to debate and offer amendments to that legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Let me just respond. I know his time has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond.
We haven't seen any of the items. Maybe you all have those items, but
we have not seen those items that we will be voting on. They haven't
been submitted to us at all.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good
friend from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do have to
speak up for Iowa, although I wish Iowa was playing in the national
championships coming up.
Mr. Speaker, not long ago, Members and leaders of the current
majority party of the House spent countless hours attempting to draw
the attention of the American people to what they defined as a culture
of corruption here in Congress. Hoping to use this, they wanted to turn
this phrase, usher in a new Democratic majority. That was their wish on
election night that Members of the new majority stood in this Chamber
prior to that, and on numerous soap boxes across the country and
promised that if the American people gave them the chance to run things
here on Capitol Hill, they would do things differently.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that things should be done differently here in
this body. Last year in the 109th Congress, I introduced H.R. 4967, the
Sunlight Act, and that was of 2006. This bill would have, on a number
of things, required that bills, conference reports, joint resolutions
and amendments be available to the public on the Internet in a
searchable format before a bill could be voted on.
It also would have required and will require, if passed, privately
funded travel be approved in advance by the Rules Committee with the
costs being fully disclosed in 5 days. It would require that Members
report exact assets and liability values on their financial disclosures
instead of vague ranges, vague ranges that allow a Member to report
between $5 million and $25 million in assets. That is too broad a
range.
A $20 million range would require the subject of debate to be
projected on the wall so it is visible to Members and people that are
in the gallery. It would require that donations to political campaigns
be reported in a searchable, sortable format on the Internet and have
that within the last 30 days each day, within each 24 hours a report be
filed.
I believe that passage of my Sunlight Act would do much to raise the
levels of transparency in the affairs of this body, and it would also
restore the public's confidence in our Members. It is disingenuous for
the majority claim that they want to change things when they don't want
to give a consideration of commonsense reforms like those outlined in
this bill.
Yet this bill, as I worked it hard last year, could not earn one
signature from a single Democrat as a co-sponsor. Now, I am refused the
opportunity to even offer this as a bill. This is my only opportunity
to even make the argument.
So I would make this argument, Mr. Speaker, that there were a lot of
campaign promises that were made. It seems to me that the one that is
the most obstructive to all of us is the promise to accomplish this
series of things in the first 100 hours. The first 100 hours has been
redefined. Many of these promises will be also given up on, and it will
be difficult, and in many cases, impossible to keep those promises.
Mr. Speaker, why don't we just waive this promise of accomplishing
all these things in the first 100 hours so the people of America can be
heard on the floor of the Congress.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1
minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the civility
provisions offered in part today as one of the new rules of the 110th
Congress. I applaud the new Democratic leadership for offering this
reform package, because our country needs a fair and functioning
Congress if we are ever going to meet these huge challenges that we
face as a Nation.
When my constituents in Connecticut's Second District voted for
change, they knew to create that change. We need a legislative body
that allows real debate and discussion, not a rush to judgment that
deprives our democracy of good ideas. To achieve that goal, this rule
will curb past abuses of this Chamber's processes.
This rule will prohibit votes being held open for the sole purpose of
affecting the outcome, a practice that in the past damaged the public's
confidence

[[Page 282]]

in laws passed by this institution. It will reform the conference
committee process, a reform that will give all Members, the press and
the American people, the opportunity to understand the content of
legislation at its most critical moment, right before passage.
Mr. Speaker, the Gallup poll that came out recently December 19
ranked the Congress' performance that only 20 percent of the American
people rated it good. It is time to fix the broken branch by adopting
these rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chair how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davis of Illinois). The gentleman from
California has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from
California has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to one of our new Members, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Braley).
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be here today to
talk about the need for more civility in this body. I would like to
remind the House that the last Member to be sanctioned for being
assaulted on the floor of this House was Lovell Rousseau, who was
involved in an assault on a representative from Grinnell, Iowa, the
city I was born in.
I think we can all think back to those days and be grateful that we
now serve in a body where respect is a daily part of the operations. I
think it is never too late to learn from the past and to make sure that
we continue to express the importance of treating each other in a
manner that provides respect to this body and also brings honor to it.
When I was out on the campaign trail, I often talked about growing up
in my hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa. When people had a problem there, they
never asked if you were Republican or a Democrat, they asked for your
help, and they got it. I think that is the purpose this body, to solve
problems and to do it in a way that brings respect and honor on this
body.
I am very honored that this new rules package promotes greater
civility and does it in a manner that is consistent with House rule
XXIII, which requires us to conduct ourselves at all times in a manner
that shall reflect credibly upon this House, and by promoting an
atmosphere where we are required to be on guard against abuses in
voting time and reforms to the conference committee process. We will
all do more to bring respect for the people who elected us to this body
to serve.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I had no idea that we had used so much of
our time, so I am going to continue to reserve our time.
I would ask my colleague from California how many speakers she has
remaining.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so if the
gentleman from California would like to use his time.
Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very
hard-working Member, who will continue on the Rules Committee, my good
friend from the Big D, Mr. Sessions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Dreier, I appreciate the opportunity for you to
yield time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit shocked and surprised with the
reformers that have come to Congress, the brand-new Democrats who are
talking about all these things that they are going to get done. Yet it
seems to me that with the respect we would have for the voters who sent
us here, that we would not be asked to approve and get ready to vote on
things without even seeing the bills.
The new Democrat party, in their openness and trying to do things
right, is asking Members of this body to vote for and approve getting
rules to the floor without even knowing what the bills are about, the
substance.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this. I rise in opposition
because I think it is a step backwards, not a step forwards. It
represents less transparency and is a slap in the face for regular
order to this House.
Section 503 of this flawed package rolls back the Sunlight reforms
implemented by the Republican Party in 1995, and it creates a secret
ballot in the Rules Committee for votes that are taken right upstairs,
Mr. Speaker, where we would meet, where rules, as they are debated and
brought before this House, Members always had to make sure that the
votes that they were going to support would be recorded. That is not
going to happen. There is no compelling reason for this bait-and-switch
that has happened now by the new Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this. I think it is a step backwards, and it is
my hope that the newest Members of this body will listen to what is
being said, that their rhetoric about the openness and change in this
body is simply a step backwards. What a shame. They thought they were
coming to Washington to change things, and what they are doing is to
make it more like central government that we are told what to do by a
few people in the Democrat leadership.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I do
so to say that I am supportive of this title called civility. We will
be having a vote on that. Mr. Sessions was very appropriately raising
concern over title V. We only had 5 minutes of debate on that. So he
raised concern about the closed rules and shutting down operations of
the Rules Committee that would record votes and make them public.
My concern about this measure we are going to have, which as I am
going to support, because I am not going to oppose civility, is that
when we look at the promises that were made by the then minority to do
things like have a 24-hour waiting period before measures are brought
up, it is denied in this rules package itself, because we got it about
19 hours before, so the spirit of that was denied there.
The whole notion of ensuring that we have consultation with the
minority when it comes to keeping votes open, when it comes to the
issue of ensuring that we will have minority participation conference
in committees. As we go down the line and look at these items, Mr.
Speaker, it does trouble me.
But there is a little bit of hope, and that hope was offered by the
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, when she told me there has
been such a short period of time between the election and opening day
and consideration of this package, that we in the Rules Committee will
have an opportunity to do more.
So I always hold out, where there is light, there is hope, you know.
I will tell you, I would do everything I can to help her maintain that
commitment, and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, these 2 days of House floor debate will culminate in a
reform of House Rules unlike any other in history. This reform is a
response to the American people to their mandate. This past November,
the people exercised a right to vote in order to send the message. It
was a mandate for change to restore civility, decorum and ethical
behavior to Congress.
As I said in my opening remarks, debate on House floor must reflect
mutual respect, even when we disagree. I look forward to restoring
decorum and civility to this House, restoring integrity to what is
truly the people's House. I urge all Members to join us in that effort.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
Title III of H.R. 6, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the
110th Congress. With the adoption of this title, we begin to make good
on our pledge to restore civility, open government, and honest
leadership to the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the civility
rules contained in Title III because Americans are paying for the cost
of corruption in Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump,
spiraling drug costs, and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the
Gulf Coast and Iraq for Administration cronies.
But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the
House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes
were held open for hours, and entirely

[[Page 283]]

new legislation was sneaked into signed conference reports in the dead
of night.
The American people registered their disgust at this terrible way of
considering and voting on legislation last November and voted for
reform. House Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and won
the majority. Restoring open government and honest leadership is one of
the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is why
we have included Title III in the Rules of the House of Representative
for the 110th Congress. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under
the Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the
Congress of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Slaughter and the members of the
Rules Committee for their excellent work in preparing the rules
package. The reforms contained in the package are necessary to ensure
that all Members of Congress, each of whom is elected to represent the
interests of nearly 600,000 constituents, have sufficient time to
consider important legislation before casting an informed vote. The
reforms we are considering also will discourage manipulation of the
voting rules to alter the outcome of roll call votes.
Mr. Speaker, I support the elements of the civility package, which
(1) prohibits holding votes open for the sole purpose of affecting the
outcome; and (2) reforms the conference committee process by requiring
adequate notice of meetings, ensuring information is available to all
conferees, and prohibiting changes to the text of signed conference
reports.
Mr. Speaker, under the previous House Republican leadership, several
votes were held open for hours in order to change the outcome. The most
notable example was the November 2003 vote on the conference report on
Medicare legislation (PL 108-173) that was held open for two hours and
53 minutes, the longest recorded vote since electronic voting began in
1973. After the expiration of the 15 minute time limit, the measure
lost 216 to 218. But the vote was held open hours to afford House
Republican leaders, the president, and the Health and Human Services
Department, enough time to lobby enough Republican members to change
their votes, or cast votes, in favor of the measure, eventually
achieving a majority of 220 to 215. This kind of unfair manipulation of
the rules would not take place under the voting rules package we are
considering today.
With respect to Conference Reports, the rules package we consider
today includes provisions intended to ensure that conferees have notice
of conference meetings and the opportunity to participate, as well as
to prevent the insertion of material into a conference agreement after
the conferees have completed their work but before the House votes on
the measure. These new rules also require House managers to ensure that
conference meetings occur under circumstances that allow every House
conferee to have notice of the meetings and reasonable opportunities to
attend. Under the prior Republican leadership, Democratic conferees
frequently were not invited to meetings of conferees, which prevented
U.S. from having a meaningful role in crafting an agreement.
The rules also require conferees to ensure that all provisions on
which the House and Senate have disagreed be considered open to
discussion at any meeting of the conference committee. Additionally,
House conferees will be required to ensure that papers reflecting a
conference agreement are held ``inviolate to change,'' unless there is
a renewal of the opportunity of all House managers to reconsider their
decision to sign or not to sign the agreement. This change is designed
to prevent material from being inserted into a conference agreement
after conferees have ``closed'' the measure. In this connection, the
new reforms requires that House managers be provided with a single time
and place, with access to at least one complete copy of the final
conference agreement, for the purpose of recording their approval, or
lack of approval, on the signature sheets that accompany the conference
report and the joint statement of managers.
Last, the new reforms bar the House from considering a conference
report if the text differs materially, except clerical changes, from
the text that reflects the action of the conferees when they signed the
conference agreement.
Mr. Speaker, to restore public confidence in this institution we must
commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most
responsive Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last
six years by putting the needs of the American people ahead of partisan
political advantage. To do that, we must start by adopting by Title III
of H.R. 6, the civility reforms to the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 110th Congress.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous
question is ordered on the portion of the divided question comprising
title III.
The question is on that portion of the divided question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The portion of the divided question comprising title IV is now
debatable for 60 minutes.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

{time} 1045

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate
only, I yield 30 minutes to the minority leader, my friend, or his
designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Title IV of our rules package is one of the ones of which I am most
proud. Over the past 12 years, our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, while allegedly praying to the gods of fiscal responsibility,
have nearly sunk our ship of state in red ink. Today we begin to right
this ship and staunch the unmitigated gall of telling the American
people that, on the one hand, they need to be more responsible with
their money, but, on the other hand, Congress should face no such
obstacle.
Today we will say ``no more'' to spending money that the government
doesn't have, only to pass down to the young people of America, some of
whom we saw here yesterday afternoon, passing it on to them before they
even have a say in how their money is being spent.
Yes, today we say to the American people that Congress, like you at
home, Jane and Joe Lunchbucket, will not spend money that we don't
have. Our credit card is maxed out and we start to reduce it today.
My fellow Democratic colleagues will provide more details about this
new set of House rules presently, but there is one more point I want to
make perfectly clear. I am not going to, and I hope my colleagues
aren't going to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle
lecture us about not doing enough here today.
I have read some of their ``talking points'' from the Budget
Committee. And while I may not be a whiz kid, I know a little something
about being lectured to.
And having this particular group of Republicans lecture us on fiscal
responsibility is a little like having the horses on the farm complain
to the ranch hand that he is not using a big enough shovel to clean up.
This analogy is not only appropriate, Mr. Speaker, it is perfect.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of our time to the
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget,
Mr. Ryan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is
recognized and will control 30 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this
title IV part of the package. And I learned, when we were in the
majority, watching the minority speak and criticize virtually every
move we made, I thought it would be wrong if you thought there were
good elements of a package to criticize it. There are good elements in
this package, and I want to start off by talking about those good
elements that are contained in this package before I start my
criticism.
First, the earmark reforms. I am an earmark reformer. I was one of
the parts of the team that reformed earmarks, that negotiated the
earmark reforms we passed last fall. I think these earmark reforms in
this package that

[[Page 284]]

the majority created are very good. They are very commendable. They
work. So I want to compliment the majority for their serious earmark
reform package that they have in here.
I think it is high time that when a Member of Congress requests an
earmark, that that Member's name be associated with that earmark, that
that Member's justification be associated with the earmark, and that
we, as Members of this body, have the opportunity to vote on whether or
not that earmark should be funded or not. We need more transparency and
more accountability in the way we spend taxpayer dollars.
I am very pleased that in the last Congress, in the 109th Congress,
we in the House passed those rules, and I am very excited that the
majority has decided to continue those rules and build on that success
by improving the package of earmark reforms we passed in the last
Congress. So that part of this package, I want to compliment the
gentleman from South Carolina and the others who put this together.
I want to direct my comments on the PAYGO part of this. I had high
hopes for this part of the package. I had high hopes that the PAYGO
rules that we are about to vote on would provide much needed fiscal
discipline to Washington and to the way we spend taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, this package just doesn't cut the mustard. I see this as
a timid, weak, watered down, paper tiger PAYGO. What I mean when I say
that, Mr. Speaker, is I believe this will have the practical effect of
simply raising taxes.
Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. We don't have a tax revenue
problem in Washington. We have a spending problem in Washington. Tax
revenues have been coming into the Federal Treasury at double digit
rates over the last 2 years. That is not the problem. We are getting
plenty of money from workers' paychecks, from families in their taxes.
It is leaving the Treasury too fast. That is our problem, and that is
where the budget discipline ought to be placed, on spending.
The problem with this PAYGO is it will have the practical effect of
simply having higher taxes to chase higher spending. It does absolutely
nothing to address the deficit we have today. It does absolutely
nothing to address today's level of spending. It does not address the
uncontrollable and unsustainable rates of spending that we have with
our entitlement programs today.
Now, I realize that the last majority wasn't perfect on spending. I
will be the first to note that because many people saw me coming to the
floor saying that in the last Congress. But when we enact spending
discipline, and when we are telling the American people that we are now
going to get tough on spending, we are going to be fiscally
conservative, that is what we should do; and this does not do that.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this PAYGO regime, if
it does actually work, will make it clear that the tax relief of 2001
and 2003, which got us out of a recession, which brought new revenues
into the Federal Government, which created seven million new jobs, will
go away. This is putting the American taxpayer on a collision course
with higher taxes. And why is it doing that? Because this system, this
PAYGO system, will make the pressure toward raising taxes to pay for
new entitlement spending. And so for that reason, I am opposed to this
PAYGO regime, Mr. Speaker. There are many others I would like to speak
about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, for purpose of
debate only, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina, one of the true rising stars in Democratic politics today,
Heath Shuler.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, the times of reckless and unchecked spending
in Congress are over. With my fellow Blue Dogs, we are cutting our
Nation's credit card. It is time to have a commonsense budget, just
like our families, and just as we do in business, have a commonsense
approach of budgeting.
Congress followed these rules in the 1990s. George H.W. Bush signed
on, and in 2 years we saw a record budget surplus. Unfortunately,
Congress has abandoned these rules and started financing spending
increases with borrowing money from China.
China's share of the U.S. debt has grown faster than any other
nation, from $61.5 billion in 2001 to $165 billion in 2004. We cannot
borrow ourselves out of debt.
This is an important first step of implementation of a statutory
PAYGO. Congress should be able to justify every line item of every
spending bill to the American people. This should be supported by all
Members for the future of our children and grandchildren.
This rules package also prevents inserting earmarks into bills in
conference, and requires that all Members be given time to examine all
bills before voting on them.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, the
ranking member on the Budget Committee, on which I have had the
pleasure of serving for the past 2 years.
And it is ironic that I follow another colleague from North Carolina
who is in favor of the Pelosi PAYGO plan that we have before us here
today on the House floor. It is unfortunate that it is being offered in
a closed rule, in a setting whereupon Republicans cannot offer any
constructive amendments or perfecting amendments to ensure that tax
increases don't arise out of this Pelosi PAYGO plan.
According to the Wall Street Journal editorial today: ``Under her,''
Pelosi's, ``PAYGO plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts
would have to be offset by either cut-backs in other entitlement
programs or tax increases. This version of PAYGO is a budget trapdoor,
designed not to control expenditures, but to make it easier to raise
taxes while blocking future tax cuts.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask to include the Wall Street Journal editorial from
today, entitled ``Tax As You Go,'' for the Record.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2007]

Tax As You Go

[[Page 285]]

for-dollar with some entitlement reduction. Congressional
budgeteers always overestimate the revenue losses from tax
cuts, which under paygo would require onerous budget cuts to
``pay for'' the tax cuts. As a political matter, those
spending cuts will never happen.
First on the chopping block, therefore, would be the
investment tax cuts of 2003 that are set to expire in 2010.
Last year Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, the new
Appropriations Committee chairman and a prodigious spender,
gave this strategy away when he urged paygo rules so he could
enact new social spending and pay for it by canceling the
Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $1 million.
Never mind that, in the wake of those capital gains and
dividend tax-rate cuts, federal revenues climbed by a record
$550 billion over the past two fiscal years. Incidentally,
thanks to the current economic expansion and the surge in tax
revenues, the budget deficit has fallen by $165 billion in
just two years--without paygo.
Given all of this, it's especially puzzling that even some
conservatives seem tempted by paygo's fiscal illusions. Our
friends at the Heritage Foundation have of late become
obsessed with future entitlement forecasts and have advised
Ms. Pelosi to enact paygo rules to stop it. But Heritage
notably did not insist that tax increases be excluded from
any paygo rule. Had such logic prevailed in 1980 or 2003,
it's possible that neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts would
ever have become law. As a political matter, paygo is about
returning Republicans to their historical minority role as
tax collectors for the welfare state.
That's not to say that new budget rules aren't highly
desirable. The line-item veto, a new Grace Commission to
identify and eliminate the billions of dollars of waste and
failed programs, and an automatic spending sequester if the
budget rises above agreed baselines would all help to restore
spending discipline. But it is precisely because these rules
would restrain spending that they are not on the Democratic
agenda.
Paygo, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending
discipline while making it all but impossible to let
taxpayers keep more of their money. It should really be
called ``spend and tax as you go.''

The fundamental budget problem here is spending too much, not taxing
too little. Federal revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past two
fiscal years because of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages. Now,
this has led to a robust economic growth for our country; and as a
result of that economic growth, we have had higher tax revenues to
government. In fact, government revenue this year is the largest it has
ever been in the history of man. Not just the history of the United
States, but we have more revenue flowing into government.
So we have a spending problem, Mr. Speaker. And with this PAYGO
trapdoor, the Pelosi PAYGO plan ignores the annual appropriations, and
it only applies to new spending. So this is an absolute trapdoor that
will lead to tax increases put forward by this new Democrat majority.
I urge us to vote this down and to actually have real constructive
budget reform.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick Murphy).
Mr. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an
original cosponsor of this vital measure.
Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one of the most important issues
facing America today, fiscal responsibility.
PAYGO is straightforward. If Congress is going to buy something, we
need to figure out how we are going to pay for it. That is what the
small business owners, farmers, and families in the Eighth
Congressional District of Pennsylvania do every single day.
If the Mignonis in Bristol want to expand their store, they have to
roll up their sleeves and figure out how they are going to pay for it.
When the Russos of Fairless Hills started saving for their daughters'
college tuition, they had to figure out how they were going to pay for
that.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are voting on here today. If you
or I have a good idea, we are going to have to roll up our sleeves,
just like the Mignonis and the Russos, and figure out how we are going
to pay for it first.

{time} 1100

As most of you know, I have a 6-week-old daughter, Maggie. Maggie and
every other newborn born in America are saddled with $28,000 in debt.
That is immoral. Voting ``yes'' to implementing PAYGO is the first step
toward getting our fiscal house in order.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains between the two parties?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 24 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. And the gentleman from Florida?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 26 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the
distinguished budget chairperson, I want to respond to Mr. Ryan by
saying, we don't have a spending revenue problem. I would remind him,
when he said that, that he and his colleagues, with this President,
have run up a debt larger than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
No problem, Mr. Ryan? Please.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished budget
chairman, who knows more about this process than all the rest of the
Members in this body combined, Mr. Spratt.
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for the compliment and wish I could
accept it, and I am glad to have the time to explain what is before us.
The budget summit in 1990 ended up with a 5-year deficit reduction
plan and a kit of budget process rules known as the Budget Enforcement
Act of 1991. Among these process changes was something that we have
come to call the PAYGO rule, or pay-as-you-go.
Basically, the pay-as-you-go rule provides that any increase in
entitlement benefits has to be paid for by a new revenue source, and
that any cut in taxes has to be offset by equivalent cuts in
entitlements or by equivalent increases elsewhere in the Tax Code. In
other words, entitlement increases or tax cuts have to be deficit
neutral. They cannot worsen the bottom line. This is the basic
principle of PAYGO; a common-sense, truly conservative principle.
PAYGO was originated by Democrats, but it was embraced by the first
President Bush in 1991, in the Budget Enforcement Act. It was adopted
by President Clinton in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. It was
confirmed again by Clinton and by this Congress in a bipartisan way in
the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. It was even endorsed by the
second President Bush in his 2001 budget submission: Reinstate PAYGO.
That is what the President requested.
But the Bush administration soon found that if we did that, it would
get in the way of its huge tax cut agenda, and that was its driving
force behind all the budget policy of this administration. So in 2002,
even though it had worked, demonstrably worked, and brought the deficit
down, in 2002, the Bush administration and this Congress, under
Republican leadership, allowed the PAYGO rule to expire.
PAYGO had been renewed three times. From 1991 to 2001, it was the law
of the budget. It worked. But it was allowed to expire. The result was
a deficit that soared. President Clinton handed over to President Bush
a budget that was in surplus, in surplus by $236 billion the year
before President Bush took office. By 2004, without the PAYGO rule,
without the strictures of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1991, the
surplus was gone, wiped out, replaced by a deficit of $413 billion.
That was a swing of more than $600 billion in the wrong direction.
In an effort to diminish these debts and to rein in the deficit,
Democrats tried repeatedly over the last 6 years to reinstate the PAYGO
rule. And Republicans, just as repeatedly, rebuked us at every turn.
Today, with a new majority, we want a new commitment to fiscal
responsibility. We want to pay as you go. We want to quit stacking debt
on top of debt.
The statutory debt, on the watch of this administration, has
increased by 60 percent, 60 percent since President Bush took office,
more than $3 trillion in new debt. This is not a sustainable course.
Nobody in this House would rise to support this course. So let us
reverse course. Let us start today. Let us

[[Page 286]]

enact something that worked for 11 years, the PAYGO rule that was
adopted first in 1991.
Today, we add two new rules to the rules of the House, section 402
and section 405 of title IV in the package before you. The original
PAYGO rule was statutory. It set up a scorecard on which tax cuts and
tax increases, entitlement cuts and entitlement increases were all
entered. At the end of the fiscal year, the tally was taken by the
Congressional Budget Office, and if there was an adverse balance, it
had to be rectified. If it was not rectified and removed, then it would
result in across-the-board abatement or sequestration cuts.
Why not just reenact the statutory rule, since that is the form that
worked? I wish we could. But it is not at all clear we can pass a
statutory change or reenactment of the PAYGO rule in the Senate, where
60 votes are needed. And it is even less clear, and extremely doubtful,
that the President would sign a statutory PAYGO rule if it reached his
desk.
So what we propose today is the art of the possible. What we propose
is a House rule, setting up a point of order to any PAYGO violation. We
also correct here the practice of using the reconciliation process, an
extraordinary process in order to do things, that would worsen the
budget deficit. But I want to focus mainly on the PAYGO result.
The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, and I look
forward to working with him, he is a good man who knows his stuff, and
I look forward to a good relationship, but I have to take exception
when he says this rule does not reduce the deficit. By itself, it may
not. But it establishes in the rules of this House a commonsense, truly
conservative principle that when the budget is in deficit, deep
deficit, at the very least, we should avoid making it worse. We should
avoid entitlement increases that are not paid for and we should avoid
tax cuts that are not offset.
This rule is not immutable, it can be waived or modified, but it
establishes a strong working presumption in favor of fiscal
responsibility and it holds accountable every Member who votes
otherwise.
Mr. Ryan claims this bill will set a double standard favoring higher
spending. But in truth it is a double-edged sword. It applies to
entitlement increases as well as tax cuts. So if you want to start the
110th Congress on the foot of fiscal responsibility, the right thing to
do is to vote to reinstate PAYGO. Vote for this package and its fiscal
responsibility provisions.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
First of all, I want to start off by saying I appreciate the
gentleman from South Carolina. He is a good man, knows his stuff, and I
very much look forward to working with him. I just want to respond to a
couple of points.
In fact, we attempted to put PAYGO in place, PAYGO on spending. So if
you try to increase spending somewhere else, you should cut spending
elsewhere and not raise taxes. That went down in 2004, largely because
of the minority opposing it.
Second point. The reason PAYGO worked well in the 1990s is because it
was statutory. If you did not comply, an across-the-board sequestration
would take place, and the threat of that was one of the reasons why
PAYGO was successful.
The third point I simply want to make is, you are going to hear a lot
of talk about we had a surplus, we handed it to the Republicans and
they squandered it. What was the surplus? The surplus was projected. It
was projected. And in those economic projections they did not foresee
the Enron scandals, they did not foresee the dot-com bubble bursting,
and they did not foresee 9/11. Of course, they did not foresee that.
They did not see the perfect storm of economic calamity, and that is
what evaporated the surplus.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, last night, I came to the floor and joined
my Democrat colleagues in supporting meaningful ethics reform. As a
former law enforcement officer, I understand as well as anyone the need
to abide by the strongest ethical guidelines, and I agree with and
commend my Democrat colleagues for presenting a rules package that
brings much-needed transparency to earmarking process.
In the last Congress, I consistently supported greater public
disclosure of Federal spending. I will be the first Member of this body
to stand up and attach my name to earmark requests and justify the need
for the expenditure. The taxpayers in my district and across our Nation
deserve to know how the government spends their hard-earned dollars.
But I rise against title IV because I cannot stand and support a
reform package that irresponsibly attaches a rule known as PAYGO that
will almost certainly lead to higher taxes on these same hard-working
taxpaying Americans.
Tax cuts unequivalently spur economic growth and create jobs. The tax
relief Congress enacted in 2003 produced tremendous growth and a record
high stock market. These tax cuts created nearly 6 million jobs across
the Nation and 88,000 jobs in Washington State alone.
Again, I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we
need more fiscal discipline. That is why I supported the balanced
budget amendment in the last Congress and I hope to work to enact that
in this Congress. But the way to reduce the deficit is to rein in
spending and cut taxes, which has proven to increase revenue. It is not
to raise taxes on families and small businesses, and I fear that this
provision will do that.
I am deeply disappointed the earmark reform contained in this title
was not attached to the ethics reforms that I enthusiastically joined
my Democrat colleagues in supporting. While I support the earmark
reforms that have been proposed here, I must urge my colleagues to
oppose this measure so that we can work together to enact significant
earmark reform.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is to take some time
on the floor today to separate fact from fiction with respect to
earmarks.
Let me start by saying that I think my record is clear. I have tried
as long as I have been in this Congress to restrain both the dollar
amount spent on earmarks and the number of earmarks that we have had.
But I want to make certain that if we are looking at earmarks we are
asking ourselves the right questions.
I do not want anyone on this floor, or anyone else, including the
White House, to suggest that if you eliminate funding for earmarks you
save one dime. You do not. The right question to ask about earmarks is
simply whether that money is put in the right place or not. And let me
explain what I mean.
When the Appropriations Committee, for instance, brings out its
appropriation bills, each subcommittee operates under a spending
ceiling. And if that bill exceeds that spending ceiling, then a single
Member can knock the entire bill off the floor. That means that
earmarks, if they are provided, are provided within the predetermined
ceiling for that bill. So, for instance, if the committee decides that
it is going to earmark 50 after-school projects, those after-school
projects are financed within the predetermined ceiling, not above that
ceiling.
So if people want to pose for holy pictures on the issue of earmarks,
be my guest. Just make sure you have your facts when you do so. That is
all I ask.
A second thing I would point out. If we are going to talk about
earmarks, then let us talk about the guy who does the most earmarking.
That is the guy in the big White House at the other end of the
Pennsylvania Avenue. He is called the President. And I want to give you
an example of what happens with the President's budget.
The biggest earmarker in the land is the President of the United
States of America. Let me give you one example.

[[Page 287]]

Last year, the administration provided 18,808 FIRE grants in districts
represented by Republican Members of Congress. It provided 11,470 FIRE
grants in districts represented by Democrats. Every single one of those
FIRE grants is the functional equivalent of an earmark.
Now, does anybody believe that that ratio of FIRE grants in
Republican versus Democratic districts was not political? If you do, I
have got a lot of things I would like to sell you after the session is
over.

{time} 1115

Let me also make one additional point: What is an earmark? If the
President sends down an Army Corps of Engineers' list of projects,
let's say he suggests 800 projects for the Army Corps of Engineers.
Let's say the Congress, after its hearings, determines that 16 of them
don't make any sense and so they substitute other projects. Are the 16
which the Congress substituted the only earmarks in that bill? What
about the original President's list? He has selected those. Doesn't
that represent an earmark on the part of the executive as well?
So I would simply ask, if we are going to start talking earmarks,
let's not have the pot calling the kettle black. Let us remember that
the Congress has a right to make policy judgments, indeed it has an
obligation to make policy judgments, that direct money to one place or
another.
When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee 12 years ago, the
Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill didn't contain a single
earmark. Last year, our Republican friends on the other side of the
aisle were planning to have 3,000 earmarks in the Labor-Health bill. I
think that is a gross exaggeration of what our staffs have the ability
to review.
I don't want a single earmark in any bill that the committee staff
cannot review to make certain that the reputation of this House and the
reputation of the committee is protected. That is why we have the
provision in this language that says if any Member asks for an earmark,
he also has to certify that that earmark will provide no financial
advantage to him or his spouse. To me, that is the way you protect the
integrity of the institution and still protect the power of the purse
and still protect the prerogative of the Congress. That is the way you
protect the prerogatives of the Congress, while also protecting the
reputation of this institution.
So, please, keep your terms straight. Keep your facts straight. Let's
not claim things that are not so about some of these changes. Let's
recognize what the definitions are and the fact that this is a very
complicated matter.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to
a new Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a word of caution about the
proposed PAYGO rules which will hurt this body's ability to keep our
economy moving forward. By putting more money into the hands of
families and taxpayers, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have helped
stimulate our economy, create jobs and cut our Federal deficit in half.
The proposed PAYGO rules wrongly identify these types of tax cuts as
``deficit spending'' and will all but eliminate our ability to provide
additional tax relief to the families and taxpayers we represent.
It will also set the framework for repealing the tax cuts that have
already been enacted. This amounts to a two-pronged threat to the
pocketbooks of the families and taxpayers across Ohio and across
America.
Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I wholeheartedly support the
earmark reform contained in this rule, and I strongly support the
spending restraint at the heart of the PAYGO concept, but I believe
these rules will, in effect, take money out of the hands of families
and taxpayers, hurting our ability to grow our economy and cut our
deficit in a fiscally responsible way.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to my good friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a
member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague.
Mr. Speaker, an important part of the honest leadership, open
government rules package is the new commitment to more stringent fiscal
responsibility under Democratic leadership and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Under the current administration and past Congresses, the Nation's
debt has been climbing out of sight. Currently we are faced with a
nearly $3 trillion national budget deficit. The rising interest rates
and a projected individual share of the national debt of more than
$28,000 per person is outrageous.
As a mother with two young daughters, I am concerned, like so many
other parents today. You see, the personal cost of spiraling debt to
the American public is overwhelming. Families are working to provide
the best opportunities for their children, while juggling mortgages,
credit card debt and student loans, as well as rising health care costs
and housing costs.
How can our neighbors back home decrease their debt loads until the
Federal Government begins to do its part? That is why the restoration
of pay-as-you-go budgeting is the right step in a new direction. Pay-
as-you-go is not entirely new, however.
Let me close by saying that these rules changes are essential to
assure our neighbors that Congress is working earnestly to do our part
to relieve the financial crunch on working families, while providing a
transparent framework in which to do it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, two plus two does not equal
six, but if I were to assume that it did, I could take care of the
budget. Easy.
PAYGO assumes that when you increase taxes, revenue goes up, and when
you lower tax rates, revenue goes down. But history shows that that is
not what happens, because there are economic factors, and people change
behavior.
Since the tax cut-rate cuts of 2003, revenue has been up every year,
and in 2 of the last 3 years has been up by double digits.
Two plus two does not equal six. PAYGO does not equal fiscal
responsibility. What PAYGO does equal is tax increases that will hurt
the economy and will not raise revenue and will not help the deficit.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a budget enforcement tool that has both a
history of success and a history of bipartisan support. In its original
form, PAYGO was part of an agreement between the first President Bush
and a Democratic Congress. A Democratic President and Congress extended
it in 1993, and a Democratic President and Republican Congress extended
it in 1997. Unfortunately, it was allowed to expire in 2002 and the
results have been a disaster. Deficits and debt have reached historic
levels and the debt limit has been raised four times.
This rule takes the first step toward restoring fiscal responsibility
in the Federal Government by requiring the House of Representatives to
pay for the bills that we pass.
I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
passage of this rule.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the element of the rules
package that we will consider today, but I do so conflicted;
conflicted, because as a long-time advocate of earmark reform and
fiscal discipline, I am in large measure encouraged by the efforts of

[[Page 288]]

my colleagues in the new Democratic majority to step forward in good
faith and open the process whereby we spend the people's money to
greater transparency, particularly in the area of earmarks.
I say from the heart that I appreciate the substantive reforms and
transparency and accountability that my Democratic colleagues will
bring forward today on earmark reform. That being said, I will oppose
this element of the rules package having to do with the pay-as-you-go
provisions, which, while they sound in a common sense way attractive,
this particular version I believe is lacking for three reasons:
Number one, I believe it is a weak and watered down version of PAYGO
proposals of the past, including Democrat party PAYGO proposals of the
past.
Number two, it doesn't reduce current spending levels or require a
reduction of current spending levels.
Number three, it is, as so many of my colleagues have said, a means
of justifying tax increases on working families, small businesses and
family farms. In a very real sense, the American people ought to know
that this proposal translates to you-pay-as-Congress-goes on spending.
In the category of a watered down provision, other PAYGO versions
were enforced by across-the-board spending cuts. That is what created
the incentive to control spending. But the Democrats PAYGO proposal is
only enforced by a point of order, which can be waived fairly easily,
as we all know.
Secondly, it only applies to new spending. Mr. Speaker, I say with
some pain, having been a part of the former majority, but we currently
don't pay for what goes out the door now. The 2007 budget right now is
projected at $286 billion in deficit. This does nothing to require us
to address our current deficits.
Lastly, as others have argued, I truly believe that by assuming that
the 2001 and 2003 tax relief will automatically expire, this Democrat
PAYGO provision will cause a substantial tax increase for working
families, small businesses and family farms.
The American people just simply need to know, however well-
intentioned, and I assume good intentions by my colleagues in the
newly-minted majority, however well intentioned, I believe this PAYGO
provision comes up short. It is, in a very real sense, the American
people pay, as Congress goes on spending
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I
appreciate the opportunity to talk. I was just trying to clarify a
couple of things on the package to make sure that we understand what it
is we are actually doing to ourselves.
I spent 2 years on the Budget Committee, and it was a very
informative time. I sat through hours and hours of conversation by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle touting the virtues of PAYGO
and that they thought this would solve the problems of the world,
knowing all along that their version of PAYGO that they talked about
was, in fact, a stealth tax increase, given the current Code that we
have in place with respect to the taxes on capital gains and dividends,
as an example, and the death tax that will come back in full force in
2011 unless we actually do something to it.
So as we consider this PAYGO concept, I would like for the American
people to know that the devil is in the details, as with everything
that we, in fact, do.
When I campaigned, when most of my colleagues campaigned, none of us
campaigned on increasing deficits. We all campaigned, on both sides of
the aisle, on reduced spending, on smaller government, all those kinds
of things that both sides are saying during this debate today. But I am
not sure this PAYGO version will, in fact, do that.
Also the point we were trying to check right now, I believe in
addition to the rules included in this rule is a change in the Rules
Committee itself to allow for votes in the Rules Committee to be not
reported out in the rule. So the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee
can waive this PAYGO rule and we won't know which of the members
actually voted to do that because of the way this rule is.
It is interesting yesterday that the word ``transparent'' was used
often by the folks on the other side of the aisle, and yet one of the
areas in which transparency seems to have been reduced is with respect
to the rule that is included in here with respect to the Rules
Committee.
So with respect to PAYGO, I want my colleagues and others to know
that this is a stealth tax increase that is being foisted upon our
economy.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 1 minute to a gentleman that was a sheriff that had to pay as
he went with reference to equipment for his department, Brad Ellsworth
from Indiana.

{time} 1130

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I thought I was going to get to follow a fellow Hoosier, Mr. Pence,
until we changed the rules. But as a proud member of the Blue Dog
Coalition, I am proud to stand today to voice my support for restoring
the pay-as-you-go budgeting. Inclusion of the PAYGO provision in the
new House rules will undoubtedly force us to make tough decisions, but
quite frankly we have no choice. The total National debt is an
astounding $9 trillion, and tough decisions need to be made by
Congress. By restoring PAYGO budgeting, we will take a positive step
toward reducing and easing the Federal deficit. Hoosier families in my
district make tough decisions every day about how to balance their
budget, and it should be no different from the Congress of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to be fiscally disciplined in
implementing pay-as-you-go budgeting, and this is a great place to
start.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding,
and I wish to join a number of my colleagues in congratulating the new
Democrat majority for their work in the area of earmarks. We know that
earmarks are perhaps a small portion of spending in this body, but they
are a large portion of the culture of spending. And I certainly salute
them for that work; but, Madam Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose this
rule because of the so-called PAYGO provision which has been adequately
pointed out is really a tax-go provision.
If PAYGO indeed lived up to its name, it would be worthy of support,
but it is not. I fear that it is nothing more than false advertising. I
listened very carefully to our new Speaker yesterday when I believe she
said that there would be no new deficit spending under the watch of the
Democrat majority. But as I look at this so-called PAYGO provision, I
see nothing that deals with entitlement spending, which threatens to
bankrupt future generations, our children and our grandchildren, with
either massive debt or a massive tax increase.
Over half of our budget deals with entitlement spending. There is
nothing that deals with that. It doesn't deal with baseline budgeting.
Now, most Americans don't know what that is, it is inside baseball, but
it is an accounting concept that would make an Enron accountant blush.
It puts in automatic inflation for government programs, yet we don't
call it new spending. And yet there is nothing in this so-called PAYGO
provision dealing with that. And we don't even have a statute.
It is also false advertising, Madam Speaker, because it doesn't live
up to what the Democratic majority advocated when they were in the
minority. We have a rule; we don't have a statute, the rule that will
end up being waivable. We don't have the sequester mechanism of earlier
PAYGO. We don't have the wedding with the discretionary caps that we
had. And, indeed,

[[Page 289]]

what we have is a subterfuge here. What we have is a Trojan horse for
more tax increases on small businesses and American families that
threaten the jobs of Americans, and we must vote this down
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to one of 13 members of the physicians in the House of
Representatives, the distinguished colleague, my friend, Mr. Kagen.
Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, my good friend Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin, I
was elected to send a message to Congress to balance its budgets and to
be fiscally responsible. As Paul Ryan notes, in Wisconsin thousands of
hardworking people have lost their jobs; and when they lost their
manufacturing jobs offshore, much of the wealth of this Nation was sent
offshore along with those jobs.
We need a positive change in America, and it needs to start now,
right here and right now in the people's House. Let's begin to build a
better future for everyone by dedicating ourselves to becoming fiscally
responsible today, not next week. And then when we do, let's ship our
values overseas and not our jobs.
I rise before you today to urge you to support pay-as-you-go as a
means to become fiscally responsible. We cannot realistically begin to
solve the many problems we face until we completely reverse the
misguided fiscal policy of borrow and spend, and borrow and spend, and
borrow and spend, which has driven our country into more debt than our
children can possibly repay. Let us agree to live within our means here
in the House as we do in our own homes back in Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I think everyone will agree, when it came
to earmarks, the big concern about the abuses of the past were two
components: one is transparency or the lack of transparency in previous
proceedings when it came to earmarks. The other was the issue of what
is called air drops, those that could be in a conference and at the
last minute add things into the budget without going through the review
of the committee or subcommittee and a public review of that aspect.
I have to compliment both sides of the aisle when it comes to
transparency. I think that both Republicans and Democrats are working
together to make sure the public knows who has asked for earmarks to be
included. But I ask that at the same time, and to say we are a little
let down, I think the public is going to feel let down, because both
sides, both Republicans and Democrats, have not addressed the air drop
issue. In fact, let's face it, why put your earmark or your request
through the review process of committee and subcommittee if you can get
put on the conference committee at the last minute, and just before the
votes are brought to the House floor add your item in without going
through the review process?
So I would ask the majority and the minority to take a look at this
aspect and not move this bill without having it specific that unless an
item has been voted on in the House or the Senate before it got to
conference, that it shouldn't be added in at the last minute. And I
come from the 50th District of California, as you know, and we saw the
crisis in credibility and government that was created by the Member
that preceded me, and one of those crises was the fact that the game
here was get on that conference committee so you could add your item
in, in an air drop, at the last minute.
So I would ask the majority to go back and take a look at this item
and bring back something that stops the abuse of air drops, the last-
minute inclusion of earmarks that doesn't go through the review
process, doesn't allow the public to know about it, and doesn't allow
you and me as Members to be able to address this issue individually.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance, and I ask you to reconsider
that before we move this item.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to one of the co-chairs of the Blue Dogs, my friend from
California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. CARDOZA. I thank my friend and gentleman from Florida.
Madam Speaker, as a fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat, I rise
in strong support of reinstating pay-as-you-go budgeting and the rules
that accompany it.
As Blue Dogs, we believe, as do the American people, that restoring
fiscal responsibility in Washington is an urgent national priority. For
far too long now under the previous leadership of this Congress and of
the current White House, we have seen reckless fiscal policies that
have undermined the future of America's economy. Now the time has come
to take our country in a new and responsible direction.
PAYGO rules are the centerpiece of the Blue Dog 12-point reform plan
for putting an end to deficit spending. We know PAYGO rules work
because they have in the past. During the 1990s, with PAYGO rules in
place, the massive deficits that we were seeing at that time were
converted into record surpluses. We saw the greatest period of economic
growth and prosperity in American history. We can do that again, and we
must. This will do, in fact, that.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And
first I want to compliment the Democrats for earmark reform that is
stronger than the Republicans did. Democrats in this way had more guts
than we did to tackle earmark reform in a meaningful way, and I
compliment them for that. And let me just note, though, with regard to
earmarks something that was said a little earlier. It was said that we
can't save money by eliminating earmarks. That is simply not true. It
was not true when it was said on this side of the aisle last year, and
it is not true when it is said from that side of the aisle today.
It is like saying, and the best analogy that I think of is if you go
to McDonald's and you order a combo meal and you are sitting there and
you say, I am going to save money by not eating the French fries I just
ordered, you are correct, you can't. That is the same analogy that is
being made on that side. Once you get to the appropriation process,
once the 302(a)s and 302(b)s are already set, that is right, you are
not going to save money. But you can save money by not ordering the
combo meal, by saying, We are going to be spending, we spent last year
$3 billion in earmarks in this bill, let's lower our allocation and
let's spend less.
So this notion that we can't save money by deciding not to spend
money on a teapot museum or the Wisconsin procurement initiative is
simply not right.
But I appreciate, and again I want to compliment, the Democrats for
doing stronger earmark reform than we did.
Let me make a few comments about PAYGO. If you are going to do PAYGO,
I would argue do it whole hog. Let's apply it to mandatory spending;
let's apply it to automatic adjustments that come up in the
appropriation process every year. This PAYGO reform is incomplete, and
it may simply lead to tax increases because you will say the only way
we can make this mandatory adjustment is to increase taxes. So the
PAYGO restrictions, it is disappointing that they aren't stronger. I
would support PAYGO on spending. There is a difference between saying
you can keep your own money or we are going to spend your money. And
that ought to be made plain in PAYGO.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to my friend from Utah (Mr. Matheson). Jim came here fighting
for fiscal responsibility and continues that effort.
Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this provision.
This is a great first start. It is a great first start that this is in
the rule; but I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), this
ought to be done in a statutory way. And, quite frankly, if we want to
replicate the

[[Page 290]]

success of the 1990s, you have got to include spending caps, too, and I
hope that we work together in a bipartisan way to do that. Because that
is really, if we want to have fiscal responsibility, you have got to
put some teeth in this and you have got to make us all live under what
are going to be some tough circumstances. But as a first step, I am
pleased this is part of the rules package. I endorse it, I encourage
people to support it, and I hope we recognize this as a first step and
we are all going to work together to employ all of the 12 points of the
Blue Dog plan that are really going to give fiscal responsibility back
to this country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to title IV. I am a
fiscal conservative and I strongly support a balanced budget, fiscal
discipline, and earmark reform; but I am afraid that this version of
PAYGO means taxes will go up.
I think that the problem that we have had between the two sides of
the aisle is over what is spending and what is tax relief. And I think
that we see tax relief as tax relief and that it is the people's money
and they know best how to spend it; and the other side of the aisle
includes tax relief as spending. So I think until we can iron out that
difference, I think we are going to have problems.
Madam Speaker, the Wall Street Journal today in an editorial called
``Tax As You Go,'' that is January 5, puts it best and much better than
I can say it and I would just like to quote a couple of lines from
there. It says: ``PAYGO, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending
discipline while making it all but impossible to let the taxpayers keep
more of their money. It really should be called spend and tax as you
go.'' I would urge everyone to look at this Wall Street Journal, and I
submit it for inclusion into the Record.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2007]

Tax As You Go

Congressional Democrats are dashing out of the gates to
establish their fiscal conservative credentials. And as early
as today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will push through so-
called ``pay-as-you-go'' budget rules for Congress. Keep an
eye on your wallet.
``Paygo,'' as Washington insiders call it, sounds like a
fiscally prudent budget practice: If government spends more
on program A, it has to spend less money on program B, and
thus budget deficits will be restrained. We're all for that.
But when Republicans proposed exactly that budget rule in
recent years, House Democrats voted it down.
Ms. Pelosi has something different in mind. Under her paygo
plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would
have to be offset by either cutbacks in other entitlement
programs or tax increases. This version of paygo is a budget
trapdoor, designed not to control expenditures but to make it
easier to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts.
Supporters of paygo claim it will help restrain entitlement
spending. It won't. Paygo doesn't apply to current
entitlements that will grow automatically over the next
several decades. Ms. Pelosi's version of paygo applies only
to new entitlements or changes in law that expand current
programs.
And on present trajectory, Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security, food stamps and the like are scheduled to increase
federal spending to almost 38% of GDP by 2050, up from 21%
today. Paygo won't stop a dime of that increase. This may
explain why one of the leading supporters of paygo is the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal outfit that
favors far more social spending.
Paygo enthusiasts also claim that when these rules were in
effect in the 1990s the budget deficit disappeared and by
2001 the budget recorded a $121 billion surplus. Sorry. The
budget improvement in the late 1990s was a result of three
events wholly unrelated to paygo: the initial spending
restraint under the Republican Congress in 1995 and 1996 as
part of their pledge to balance the budget; a huge reduction
in military spending, totaling nearly 2% of GDP, over the
decade; and rapid economic growth, which always causes a
bounce in revenues. Paygo didn't expire until 2002, but by
the late 1990s politicians in both parties were already re-
stoking the domestic spending fires.
What paygo does restrain are tax cuts, by requiring that
any tax cut be offset dollar-for-dollar with some entitlement
reduction. Congressional budgeteers always overestimate the
revenue losses from tax cuts, which under paygo would require
onerous budget cuts to ``pay for'' the tax cuts. As a
political matter, those spending cuts will never happen.
First on the chopping block, therefore, would be the
investment tax cuts of 2003 that are set to expire in 2010.
Last year Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, the new
Appropriations Committee chairman and a prodigious spender,
gave this strategy away when he urged paygo rules so he could
enact new social spending and pay for it by canceling the
Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $1 million.
Never mind that, in the wake of those capital gains and
dividend tax-rate cuts, federal revenues climbed by a record
$550 billion over the past two fiscal years. Incidentally,
thanks to the current economic expansion and the surge in tax
revenues, the budget deficit has fallen by $165 billion in
just two years--without paygo.
Given all of this, it's especially puzzling that even some
conservatives seem tempted by paygo's fiscal illusions. Our
friends at the Heritage Foundation have of late become
obsessed with future entitlement forecasts and have advised
Ms. Pelosi to enact paygo rules to stop it. But Heritage
notably did not insist that tax increases be excluded from
any paygo rule. Had such logic prevailed in 1980 or 2003,
it's possible that neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts would
ever have become law. As a political matter, paygo is about
returning Republicans to their historical minority role as
tax collectors for the welfare state.
That's not to say that new budget rules aren't highly
desirable. The line-item veto, a new Grace Commission to
identify and eliminate the billions of dollars of waste and
failed programs, and an automatic spending sequester if the
budget rises above agreed baselines would all help to restore
spending discipline. But it is precisely because these rules
would restrain spending that they are not on the Democratic
agenda.
Paygo, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending
discipline while making it all but impossible to let
taxpayers keep more of their money. It should really be
called ``spend and tax as you go.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The Bush administration has turned a projected 10-year $5.6 billion
surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit, and my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would come here and complain that we are
cleaning up their mess.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from California,
the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Schiff.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to speak
very strongly in favor of these PAYGO rules as a very strong step to
restoring fiscal responsibility to this House.
Over the last 6 years, the President and the Republican-controlled
Congress essentially had a policy of borrow and spend. We didn't have
the discipline to turn down new spending requests; we didn't have the
discipline to pay for additional tax cuts. We even had, in the most
ironic of weeks, a situation where we voted to increase the national
debt by $800 billion in the same week we voted to cut taxes by $800
billion, and we made it very clear that we were borrowing the money to
fund these additional tax cuts.

{time} 1145

This is not the way to restore fiscal responsibility to this House.
PAYGO is. The first rule of PAYGO is when you are in a hole, as we are
in, when you are in a budgetary hole, stop digging. If we want new
spending, we need to find a way to pay for it. If we want new tax cuts,
that is great, too, we need to find a way to pay for it. And we cannot
pay for it by asking these young men and women fighting for us in Iraq
and Afghanistan and elsewhere to come home and pay for it later and
have their children pay for it. Because right now all we are doing is
shifting this obligation onto our children and grandchildren. That has
got to stop.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to a gentleman from Indiana whose committee was called, ``Bring
back Baron'' and I am very glad we brought back Baron.
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank you for
waiting for 12 years to sit in the Speaker's chair. I also thank you
for the opportunity to speak on an issue that I think is one of the
most important actions we can take for the American people.
I am a proud member of the Blue Dog Coalition. I have been
advocating, along with my colleagues in the Blue

[[Page 291]]

Dogs for years that the House implement rules that ensure that the
Federal Government's expenditures equal its revenues, otherwise known
as PAYGO.
PAYGO rules will not only help us rein in out-of-control spending
that has led to record deficits, but they will also help us clearly
outline our country's priorities.
Including PAYGO rules as part of the House rules package is a great
first step. And I, along with my Blue Dog colleagues, will work with
leadership to ensure that they are followed. However, it is a first
step. We must also work together to enact statutory rules for PAYGO as
well as discretionary spending limits.
Madam Speaker, thank you again for this opportunity for the House and
the country to get its spending in check.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here, and I am glad that
the Democrats are interested in fiscal discipline. That is a good
thing. It is a good bipartisan debate. But there are three flaws in the
Democrat PAYGO approach that I think are very important.
Number one, this tax issue that just won't go away. You know, based
on scoring and based on reality and based on fact, when Kennedy cut
taxes, when Reagan cut taxes and when Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.
Now we all know that scoring in this town counts a tax cut as a
spending increase. How silly in the face of economic reality over the
past 40 years.
Maybe the Democrat Party could look at scoring and change that. I
think that is something we were unable to do as the majority. It would
be a good idea for you to pursue it. But you and I both know that
revenues went up in 2005 14 percent, in 2006 11 percent, and it was
because of the economic growth brought about by the 2003 Bush tax cuts.
PAYGO ignores that. How silly. How disingenuous.
Number two, I want to talk about entitlement reform. The big money,
while I think we do need earmark reform and have supported it, but the
big money, as we know, are in entitlements: 53 percent of the budget.
The Democrats were getting a lot of good credit for what I would say
is kind of a golden oldies agenda, bringing out no original ideas,
minimum wage, stem cell and student loans. And I understand those are
safe things. But it is kind of like starting out the World Series by
bunting instead of trying to get on base with real serious hits.
The reason why I submit that criticism is there is nothing in your
agenda about immigration reform, Social Security reform, Medicare
reform, the heavy-lifting ideas of entitlement, and PAYGO completely
ignores those as well.
Number three, the real world, where is the Senate on PAYGO? My friend
from Florida may know, but isn't it possible that unless they are going
to do PAYGO, it is a silly exercise. It is boilerplate. It looks good,
but the truth is if the Senate is not on board, which they are not, we
are wasting time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I say to my friend from Georgia that what I do know is he is not
proud of the $3 trillion deficit that his party ran up in this country
that we have the responsibility of cleaning up. I hope he is not proud
of that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida, a new Member, whose district abuts mine, Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today representing
Florida's 16th District in support of title IV of the House rules
package to return fiscal responsibility to Congress.
As a former businessman, as of a couple of days ago, I cannot
overstress the importance of restoring fiscal discipline and
accountability to our government. Over the past 6 years, this House has
allowed record surpluses to be turned into record deficits that have
increased our national debt to a nearly staggering $9 trillion.
Earmarks, an important prerogative of this great body, have been
abused for the purposes of greed and as a tool to hold onto power,
costing Americans billions of their hard-earned money. Make no mistake,
our debt is a tax on America's future as it threatens both the security
and prosperity of our country.
Today we have the opportunity to demonstrate to the American people
that we have heard their voices this past November and we are prepared
to make our government live within its means, just like every American
family. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support title IV.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very
pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the House rules
package, and especially title IV which reinstalls PAYGO budget rules.
One of the reasons I came to Congress was to bring real world
business perspective to government. In the business world,
accountability and results matter. To get our fiscal house in order,
Congress must do what every business does: Balance its books. If it is
worth doing, it is worth paying for. We must pay as we go. It is a
simple concept with a proven track record.
I am pleased Congress is returning from the recent borrow-and-spend
irresponsibility to fiscal soundness and the accountability our
constituents expect.
I want to thank the Blue Dog Coalition and my colleagues for their
leadership on this issue. Today's vote is a result of their steadfast
guidance of our Democratic Caucus and Congress on the importance of
fiscal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to follow the Blue Dog's lead and support
reinstituting pay-as-you-go budget rules. Now accountability in
government will be more than just a catch phrase.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida.
I rise basically to support my colleagues for introducing this
important and long overdue rules package. This sets the tone for a more
open and ethical Congress. In addition to other changes, the resolution
creates important pay-as-you-go rules to clean up our fiscal house.
As a successful business owner, I learned the importance of balancing
the books. If I hadn't, I would not have been successful in business.
Our government needs to live by the same rule, and I join my fellow
Blue Dogs to push PAYGO as part of the solution to the problems we are
experiencing today.
We know it works. When PAYGO was on the books in the 1990s, we saw
the deficits disappear. Now with an out-of-control national debt, we
need PAYGO more than ever. We need fiscal responsibility in America.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
First off, I want to start off by congratulating the majority on the
very commendable earmark reform legislation that is contained in this
title. I just want to emphasize that. But this PAYGO package is
woefully inadequate. It is a paper tiger.
Three quick points. Number one, this protects all current spending,
even the programs that are scheduled to expire. However, it assumes
that expiring tax relief will lapse; and, thus, require offsets to
continue. This is a double standard that reflects their preference,
protect higher spending but not lower taxes. It is a recipe for tax
increases.
Number two, it contains a huge loophole. Spend now, save later. You
can enact new spending now and come up with savings down the road,
which we know never really happens. Big loophole.
Number three, this is a weaker version of PAYGO than what the
majority was proposing just last year.

[[Page 292]]

They were not allowing points of order to be waived when you violated a
PAYGO rule in their earlier version. But now when they are in the
majority, you can simply waive it with a majority vote upstairs in the
Rules Committee.
This is a much weaker version of PAYGO. But I want to address a few
other things.
Number one, you are going to hear this all year: They gave us a
surplus. We inherited a surplus; we squandered the surplus.
Madam Speaker, what was the surplus? The surplus was a projection. It
was a projection by economists at OMB and CBO that said we are going to
have all of this money coming in.
You know what they didn't project, they didn't project 9/11. They
didn't project war. They didn't project the dot-com bubble bursting or
the recession or the Enron scandals. What did that do? It was a fiscal
train wreck for America, and our numbers went down and we had to spend
more money when we went to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Where are we today? The budget deficit went down 40 percent. In 1
year, the budget deficit went down 40 percent off projections. Why,
Madam Speaker? It went down that much because revenues increased. Why
did revenues increase, because we let the American people keep more of
their own hard-earned dollars. They were able to keep more of their tax
dollars.
There is a very deep difference between our two parties on principle
and on philosophy. We believe that the money in America in the Federal
Government is the people's money. That the money we spend is not our
money, it is the money of our constituents. It is their money.
When you see rules like this, which I want to quote from the Wall
Street Journal: PAYGO, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending
discipline while making it all but impossible to let taxpayers keep
more of their own money. It should really be called spend and tax as
you go.
This bill does nothing to control current spending. It does nothing
to reduce the current deficit, and it puts us on a path to raise taxes.
We believe the priorities ought to be different: That we ought to
control spending and reduce spending to balance the budget, not raise
taxes because after all, the money that comes to the Federal Government
is not our money. It is the people's money. It comes from the paychecks
of working Americans, men and women, small businesses, farmers and
businesses. By letting people keep more of their own hard-earned
dollar, our economy grows, revenues grow. We have to watch spending.
That is where the priorities ought to be placed. This does not deliver
that.
Hopefully we can work together in the future to have a real spending
mechanism that actually controls spending rather than puts us on a
pathway to higher taxes.
Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this legislation because of the
honorable earmark reforms.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would say to Mr. Ryan that the Democrats are 2 days
in the majority. The Republicans were 12 years in the majority with the
purse strings, and this deficit ran up on your watch.
On the second day that we are here talking about what we are going to
do as a first step to clean up your mess, you would complain? Cut me
some slack.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel)
such time as he may consume.

{time} 1200

Mr. EMANUEL. Six years, $3 trillion in new debt. The largest
accumulation of debt in the shortest period of time in American
history. That is the legacy. And the one thing you can say about George
Bush and this economy is we will be forever in your debt. That is the
one thing that is clear.
Now, folks, I am glad that you have the sentiment to be for this, but
you had the inability to do it. We are going to do something you talked
about, but we actually are going to walk the walk and not just talk the
talk. We are going to put this fiscal house in order.
And you did get handed a surplus prior to total Republican control.
You got handed a surplus. It wasn't illusory. Nobody could not find it.
We knew exactly where it was. And you spent it. You did something no
American President and no Congress had ever tried in American history.
Three wars, three tax cuts, $3 trillion in new debt. I don't know what
your fixation is about that. You have got a fixation for the number
three. I have no idea why. But that is what you did. You had a war in
Iraq, a war on terror, a war in Afghanistan. You tried three major tax
cuts, and you got $3 trillion in new debt. And on day number two, the
Democrats have said enough is enough with running up the debt and the
deficit of this country. We are going to begin to take steps to put our
fiscal house in order.
And let's start with number one, and that is earmark reform. When the
Republican Congress took over in 1995, throughout the entire Federal
budget, 1,400 earmarks. At the end of the Republican Congress, there
were 13,997 earmarks. Now, I know your kids know the explosion on those
numbers from 1,400 to nearly 14,000 earmarks. And we are going to use
the disinfectant of sunlight. And everybody is going to know everything
they need to know about these earmarks.
Now let me use one quote over the years when we were dealing with
earmarks. A famous lobbyist called earmarks ``an ATM for lobbyists.''
Well, folks, that is part of ethics and lobbying reform, and we are
going to change that. It is not going to be an ATM machine for the
special interests anymore because this Congress, that gavel, is going
to open up the people's House, not the auction house. And that is what
has happened here over the years.
Number two, pay-as-you-go rules. I worked for an administration that
had pay-as-you-go rules. It created discipline not just for
Republicans, not just for Democrats. For the government. For the
American people's money. And we created a surplus through hard work and
discipline. These two steps, pay-as-you-go rules, no new spending
without the revenue to pay for them; and earmark reform, will actually
change our fiscal house and also the attitude in which we deal with
things, and there won't be this insidious relationship between
lobbyists and the American people's money. We will do what we need to
do. And step one is lobbying and ethics reform, to change how
Washington does the people's business; and step two is to put their
government's fiscal house in order. That is what we are doing, and I
know in your heart of hearts because I know you as individuals, and I
see a number of Members here who are nodding their heads ``yes,'' you
would like to be for this, but you just can't seem to find that little
green button. So this is a chance to vote for it.
Remember all the rhetoric and all the speeches you gave on earmark
reform, fiscal discipline. You believe what is going on here is the
right thing to do. You know it is the right thing to do. But because of
party loyalties, you won't do that. That is exactly what we applauded
yesterday was to put partisanship aside and join us in the act of
patriotism. I know you would like to vote ``yes.'' In your heart of
hearts you would like to vote ``yes.'' And I am proud that we are doing
what you have only talked about because we will not just talk the talk.
We will walk the walk.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Pay-as-you-go was the law of the land from 1990 until 2002, paving
the way for a balanced budget in the late 1990s, 4 years of budget
surpluses, and bringing down the national debt by $453 billion. The
Bush administration has turned a projected 10-year $5.6 billion surplus
into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. America's debt has already climbed
50 percent to more than $28,000 per person, and President Bush has
borrowed more from foreign nations than the

[[Page 293]]

previous 42 United States Presidents combined.
Something has to change and that change is coming now. The pay-as-
you-go budgeting with no new deficit spending is just a first step, a
key first step, in reversing record budget deficits.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
Title IV of H.R. 6, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the
110th Congress. With the adoption of this title, we begin to make good
on our pledge to restore fiscal responsibility, open government, and
honest leadership to the House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the ``pay as
you go'' or ``paygo'' rules contained in Title IV. We must restore
budget discipline with no new deficit spending as the first step to
reversing record budget deficits that are passing trillions in debt on
to our children and grandchildren. We must also amend House rules to
require full transparency in order to begin to end the abuse of special
interest earmarks.
Madam Speaker, the Bush Administration has turned a projected 10-year
$5.6 billion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. Under this
Administration, America's debt has climbed 50 percent to more than
$28,000 per person, and the United States has borrowed more from
foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined. Rising
interest rates caused by Bush deficits cost middle-class families as
much as $1,700 a year on credit card and mortgage payments, with
interest payments on the debt becoming one of the fastest growing
categories of spending in the federal budget.
Madam Speaker, pay-as-you-go was the law of the land from 1990 until
2002, paving the way for a balanced budget in the late 1990s, four
years of budget surpluses, and bringing down the national debt by $453
billion.
Forty-two percent of the American public says reducing the deficit
should be a top priority. On November 5, 1990, President George H.W.
Bush signed a deficit reduction bill imposing pay-as you-go discipline
in a bipartisan deal supported by 47 House Republicans and 19 Senate
Republicans. Republicans such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan and Senator John McCain support pay-as-you-go budgeting. It
is supported by the Concord Coalition, the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and the
Committee for Economic Development.
Madam Speaker, earmark reform is needed to bring transparency and
accountability for special projects. The status quo has permitted some
Members of Congress, with no transparency and accountability, to
provide favors to special friends through earmarked special projects--
putting special interests ahead of the public interest. The American
people deserve to know who is sponsoring earmarks to begin to stop the
cases of flagrant abuse of earmarks.
The number of earmarks has exploded under the Republicans, climbing
from 3,023 in FY 1996 to 13,012 in FY 2006, and the lack of
transparency and accountability has led to problems--of which Rep.
Cunningham is an example. Former Representative Duke Cunningham pleaded
guilty to accepting bribes from defense contractors in return for his
help in securing defense contracts.
The Democratic reform package will amend House rules to clearly
define what constitutes an earmark, along with its proper use.
Specifically, the package will prohibit earmarks that personally
benefit Members and their spouses. Earmark reform under Democrats will
ban earmarks that benefit lobbyists who chair a Member's Political
Action Committee.
Madam Speaker, to restore public confidence in this institution, we
must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most
responsive, most fiscally responsible Congress in history. We can end
the nightmare of the last six years by putting the needs of the
American people ahead of partisan political advantage. To do that, we
must start by adopting Title III of H.R. 6, the fiscal responsibility
reforms to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th
Congress.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule
change and real Pay-As-You-Go or ``Pay-Go'' budget requirements.
Madam Speaker, the 109th Session of Congress left behind a legacy
that is certain to go down in the annals of history as the height of
fiscal irresponsibility. Unless you consider an additional $781 billion
extension of the debt limit, the fourth of a series approved since 2003
that added an additional $3 trillion in new debt, the 109th Session can
boast of no budgetary accomplishment.
In fact, it failed in its most basic responsibility: passing a budget
for the Federal Government and failing to enact 9 of the 11 regular
spending bills that fund the government's operations.
But, it simply didn't just fail pass a budget, it actually made the
Nation's fiscal problems worse. It took what it already knew were large
projected deficits and passed legislation that makes them even larger
in future years. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
legislation enacted last session actually increases the projected
budget deficits by $452 billion above what they would have been between
2005 and 2011 had they never been in session.
Over the course of the past 5 years, with full control of the White
House and both chambers of Congress, the Republican leadership
inherited an estimated 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion and
after 5 years has turned the same 10-year period (2002-2011) into a
projected budget deficit of $3 trillion--a disastrous $8.6 trillion
turnabout.
This explosion of budget deficits is largely the result of 2
irresponsible budget policies of the former Republican majority:
First, was its decision to waive all budget rules and not to pay for
the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, letting emergency spending
bills be enacted within the discipline and restraints on the regular
budget process; and
Second, was to make tax cuts its highest priority, enacting a series
of tax cuts, targeted primarily at the wealthiest Americans and
corporations that need them the least, with no offsets.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 3 major tax cuts
enacted over the past 5 years cost $1.5 trillion between 2001 and 2014.
The actual number is somewhat higher once you tack on the additional
costs of debt-servicing.
I don't pretend to have all the answers to solve our fiscal problems.
But, one thing we should not do is more harm. We should not increase
the amount of debt our children will inherit.
Adopting a real Pay-Go requirement as part of the Rules for the 110th
Congress will keep this institution and the White House from digging an
even larger budget deficit hole.
The pay-go rule we are considering today is not unlike the original
one adopted as part of the 1993 budget agreement that required any
spending or revenue measure we consider before the full House be fully
offset and not increase the budget deficit.
The first Pay-Go requirements were adopted in 1993 as part of the
largest deficit reduction package that Congress ever approved; a
package that passed both chambers with a single Republican vote. It
included both real spending cuts and real tax increases and placed us
on a course toward balanced budgets.
The Pay-Go requirements were subsequently extended as part of the
1995 bipartisan budget agreement and closed the final gap in deficit
spending that in 1999 produced the first balanced budget in more than
30 years.
We would be in a much better situation today had the original ``Pay-
Go'' rule remained in effect.
Instead, a Republican-controlled Congress allowed the Pay-Go
requirements to expire, enabling them to adopt irresponsible tax cuts
that are largely responsible for the deficits we face today.
Adopting a true Pay-Go rule today gets us back on track toward
responsible fiscal policy. I encourage my colleagues to support its
inclusion in the Rules of the 110th Congress.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I rise to express concerns about the
budget items in the Democrat Rules package.
I believe that we can do better and this proposal does not go far
enough. I am committed to curtailing special-interest, pork-barrel
spending and reforming earmarks.
While on the face it appears Democrats are concerned about reducing
the deficit because they mention Reconciliation. This is only smoke and
mirrors. Simply put, the language in their rules package makes it easy
to raise taxes and difficult to reduce them. The language allows the
use of expedited procedures (budget reconciliation) to raise taxes. At
the same time, the language prohibits using reconciliation for tax
relief.
We need transparency, accountability, and better control for the
federal spending process. Earmark Reform and Reconciliation are
baseless without a Rescission process for cutting spending.
Businesses and families often review their planned budget with actual
spending on a monthly basis to spot and eliminate unnecessary spending.
While common sense would lead taxpayers to believe that similar
oversight exists for our federal budget, this would be wrong. Congress
has no formal process that allows members to force votes to trim
wasteful

[[Page 294]]

spending at any time after federal spending gets signed into law.
Soon I plan to introduce my legislation, the Cut the Unnecessary Tab
(CUT) resolution, that would make any unspent federal funding
vulnerable to a recorded vote for cuts at the beginning of each fiscal
quarter. Any Member of the House could offer an amendment to these
quarterly bills to cut spending.
Under my bill, Members of Congress will have four opportunities every
year to propose elimination of programs that are superfluous or
incompetent. This gives Congress a tool that individual Members can use
to bring the chamber into commonsense spending cuts. No longer would
any Member of Congress have the excuse that one individual acting alone
would not have a way to reform the Federal Government's spending.
It is my hope that the Democrats live up to their promise for no new
deficit spending. However, I fear that it's a plan to raise taxes. The
resolution allows Democrats to increase spending as much as they like--
as long as they ``pay for'' it by cutting other spending or--more
likely--by chasing that spending with ever-higher taxes. This watered
down PAYGO proposal does not reduce current spending--it stops tax
cuts. This PAYGO applies only to NEW spending. All previous PAYGO
versions were enforced by across-the-board spending cuts--that's what
created the incentive to control spending. But the Democrats' PAYGO is
enforced only by a point of order--which they can easily waive for
their pet spending increases.
Congress can and must do better. The easiest and best way to stop the
growth of federal spending and let American families keep more of their
hard earned taxpayer dollars is to make these tough decisions now.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Title IV Sec.
405 Pay-As-You-Go rules before the House today. I support these rules
that will enable us to patch a sinking ship. The Republican tax cuts
for the wealthiest Americans have driven us into permanent deficit
spending. These rules will stop the sacrifice of the nation's well
being for the benefit of the few.
I continue to be concerned about our weakened economy and the
shrinking industrial base. I believe Congress should be enacting
measures that will expand the economy, revitalize the rust belt, expand
our manufacturing base, prime the pump when needed in recession, and
invest in infrastructure improvements. I believe Congress should enact
universal healthcare for all and universal pre-kindergarten. Unlike the
irresponsible tax cuts in the past 4 years, I am prepared to ensure
these programs do not run up deficits over the long term. This can all
be accomplished under these rules.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
reluctant opposition to Title IV of H. Res. 6, adopting the rules of
the 110th Congress. This title purports to uphold a commitment to
fiscal responsibility, but in actuality it includes a mechanism by
which the new majority may increase taxes for hardworking Americans.
Ultimately, this title could facilitate tax increases while preventing
tax relief measures for millions of Americans. Instead, the House
should reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility by passing a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that Congress does not
spend more than it takes in.
To be clear, I do support an important provision contained in Title
IV--namely, the provision concerning the long-overdue reform for
congressional earmarks. I have long supported measures to bring
transparency and accountability to the earmarking process to ensure
that the American people know their money is not being squandered. In
fact, I proudly supported H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and
Transparency Act, as well as H. Res. 1000, both of which passed last
year to amend the rules of the House to address earmark reform. These
two measures were the first steps in ending the abuse of earmarks by a
few members and increasing fiscal trust in Congress. I fully support
the continuation of these efforts to crack down on earmark misuse and
improve the financial transparency of our budget.
Regrettably, the important earmark reform provision of this title was
coupled with a measure that could potentially increase taxes for all
Americans. This provision, known as pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, seems like
a beneficial tool to fiscal responsibility on its face. PAYGO budgetary
rules require new mandatory spending be offset by either other equal
reductions in mandatory spending or by revenue increases. However, with
plans for new direct spending programs and budgetary rules that do not
accurately score the effect of tax reductions on future economic
growth, PAYGO is really a policy of ``tax and spend as you go.''
For this reason, I must reluctantly oppose this title. Instead, I
will support the motion to commit, which will ensure Americans are not
squeezed in their pocketbooks by requiring a three-fifths vote to pass
any congressional tax hike. The three-fifths requirement was an
important reform of the Contract with America, instituted in 1995 to
protect Americans from unfair tax increases. By failing to guarantee
this requirement, millions of American families and small businesses
could be threatened by money grabs from greedy tax writers. This is not
right. Over the past several years, our economy has seen levels of
unprecedented growth as a result of the 2003 tax cuts. Today, with over
seven million payroll jobs created and the Dow Jones Industrial Average
at record highs, it would be irresponsible to jeopardize the economic
progress we have made.
In addition, I call for the House of Representatives to consider H.J.
Res. 1, which proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. I have joined over 100 of my fiscally responsible
and forward-thinking colleagues in cosponsoring this bill, which is a
real solution to deficit spending. For the first time ever, this
amendment would put it in our Constitution--in the very fabric of our
democracy--that taxpayers' money belongs to them and that Congress has
the obligation of spending it carefully and responsibly. I
wholeheartedly support this vital amendment and I sincerely hope this
House will uphold our commitment to our constituents by considering and
passing H.J. Res. 1.
Again, I cannot support Title IV of H. Res. 6 because it allows for a
needless increase of the financial burden on all American families.
Instead, I support the motion to commit and the Balanced Budget
Amendment as real steps forward in reducing the tax burden on American
families and committing ourselves to true fiscal responsibility. Our
obligation to hardworking taxpayers deserve no less.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). Pursuant to
House Resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on the portion of
the divided question comprising title IV.
The question is on that portion of the divided question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The portion of the divided question comprising title V is now
debatable for 10 minutes.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, since the title of
the rules package that we are seeking to debate now includes five
closed rules for legislation that we haven't seen and we only have 10
minutes to debate this title, I ask unanimous consent for 1 hour of
debate, at least 1 hour of debate, for these, in effect, five closed
rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
``The disinfectant of sunlight,'' Madam Speaker. I just heard that
term.
The alternation of power can sometimes be healthy, often be healthy
in democracy. Progress is made by the cumulative efforts and reforms of
succeeding generations in this Congress, often from both parties. But
retrogression, Madam Speaker, from progress is neither healthy nor
certainly commendable.
As I mentioned before, in this section of the rules package brought
forth by the new majority, first of all, the Rules Committee will no
longer be required to disclose roll call votes on rules

[[Page 295]]

brought forth or amendments in committee. I believe, and I haven't
heard it from the other side because no pretext has even been brought
forth here in the House, but I believe that the pretext is for closing
out sunshine completely in the Rules Committee, that some mistakes were
made reporting in the past roll calls. In the last 12 years, there were
over 1,300 recorded votes in the Committee on Rules, and not once,
Madam Speaker, did the committee file a report with incorrect vote
totals.
And then, as I made reference before, this title of the rules package
that the majority brings forth includes five closed rules for
legislation that we still haven't seen. And we have received a lot of
criticism. I have heard a lot of criticism over the last years when we
have come to the floor from the Rules Committee with closed rules, but
at least we have had Rules Committees meetings and there has been an
opportunity for Members to go to the Rules Committee and present
amendments.
Well, now we are, in this rules package, in a totally unprecedented
manner, seeing that the majority is bringing forth five closed rules
for bills that we haven't seen. And in addition, they are waiving all
points of order, all points of order, against all of those five bills
that we haven't even seen. So that is most unfortunate, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask how
much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute
to my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
proposal. For the first time in more than a decade and in recent
memory, the new House leadership, and this is hard to believe, is
attempting to keep secret the votes of one of our most important
committees, the Rules Committee. It determines which bills are sent to
the House floor, for how long they may be debated, and what amendments
the people's House will consider. It is a critical part of our
democratic process. Hiding these votes from the public, cloaking this
committee in secrecy where backroom deals are shielded from the
American voter, is an outrageous and arrogant step backward from open
and honest government. This is abuse of power that must be stopped.
And, sadly, I will file a Freedom of Information Act request on every
Rules Committee vote so that the American public can see what this
committee is trying to hide.
We ought to defeat this proposal
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me respond to my colleagues from
Florida and Texas by simply saying you are wrong.
Let me ask, has the gentleman yielded back all his time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. No, I have not.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
So not only can we not have an hour, but now we have to finish our
debate before hearing our opponents.
No, again, we heard ``the disinfectant of sunlight'' has arrived. An
interesting definition for what has arrived, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, what we are voting on today, this rules package, this
provision, this title V, constitutes serious retrogression from
progress made in this Congress throughout generations of work, of
reform, from both parties, that has brought openness and transparency.
The Rules Committee now is closed off from the public, and closed rules
are brought to this floor in this rules package before we have even
seen legislation. Most unfortunate, Madam Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the words of my colleagues from Texas and Florida. And I
should remind my colleague from Florida when you are in the majority,
you get to close debates. And he should have known that since he was in
the majority for 12 years.
And I think for anybody to talk about abuse of power, it takes a lot
of chutzpah. I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas to look at
what happened over the last 12 years in this Congress.
Madam Speaker, this is the final title of the rules package. It
consists of basic technical changes to the House rules.
First, this title gives the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform authority to adopt a rule, allowing committee members and staff
to conduct depositions in the course of committee investigations.

{time} 1215

Second, it shields the Rules Committee reports from a point of order
if they are filed without a complete list of record votes taken during
the consideration of a special rule. This provision allows the Rules
Committee to publish recorded votes taken during committee hearings and
committee reports and/or through other means, such as the Internet.
Third, it allows for the consideration of several pieces of
legislation that are part of the first 100 hours agenda, if special
rules for those provisions are not separately reported.
Fourth, this title continues the budget deeming resolution for the
second session of the 109th Congress until such time as a conference
report establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2008 is adopted.
Fifth and finally, this title renews the standing order approved
during the 109th Congress that prohibits registered lobbyists from
using Members' exercise facilities, which is something I know is very
important to the Members on the other side of the aisle.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have focused a lot of
attention incorrectly on the second provision regarding the publishing
of votes taken in the Rules Committee.
Let me explain in detail what this provision actually accomplishes
and why we have included it in this package. Section 503 is a
straightforward clerical change to clause 3(b), rule XIII, that will
make it a little easier for the Rules Committee to transmit its work
product to the House in a timely manner.
Despite what you may hear from the other side of the aisle, this
section will not reduce the amount of information available to the
public about what we do in the Rules Committee, and it will not stop us
from taking public votes in the committee.
Let me make something else clear. The House rules already require
committees to keep a record of all recorded votes and to make those
votes available publicly.
That requirement has been in the permanent rules since 1953. The
Rules Committee has always and will always comply with that rule. In
fact, it is our goal to make Rules Committee votes available to the
public more quickly than they do under the current practices. Our
committee often meets on short notice and under severe time
restrictions.
Unlike other committees, which usually have several days to put
together reports, our committee is often required to assemble large,
complex reports in a matter of hours. The proper reporting and filing
of these reports in the House is essential to the efficient operation
of the House.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. No, I will not. We sometimes report and file a special
rule late one night, and the next morning the rule and the bill are on
the House floor. There is just not much room for even minor clerical
errors when you are under such tight deadlines. This rules change does
not mean that the public will have any less access to what happens in
the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker.
We plan to include record votes in the Rules Committee reports and,
even better, we intend to post committee votes on the Rules Committee
Web site as soon as they have them, so that the

[[Page 296]]

American people will know what is going on.
Even better than that, we plan to have more meetings during the
daylight hours so that the public and the press know what we are doing
in the Rules Committee.
Well, let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you
feel that the votes taken in the Rules Committee are not being made
public fast enough, or are clear enough, you have my word that we will
work to fix it, and we will work with you. You have my word on that.
More importantly, Madam Speaker, after our business here in the House
concludes today, we will have made historic progress. We will have
ended the culture of corruption that has plagued this House for the
past dozen years. We will have paved the way to accomplishing what the
American people voted for, to give minimum wage workers a raise.
Right now the average CEO of a Fortune 500 Company earns $10,712 in 1
hour 16 minutes. It takes an average minimum wage worker 52, 40-hour
weeks, an entire year, to earn the same $10,712. It is wrong, and we
are going to fix it.
We will have paved a way to make college tuition and prescription
drugs more affordable, to make our homeland safer, by implementing the
9/11 Commission recommendations, and to invest in lifesaving stem cell
research. All of these measures, Madam Speaker, have been the subject
of hearings. Many of them have been voted on. But the majority on the
other side has stalled and undermined these measure at every step. No
more.
Finally, Madam Speaker, let me assure my friends, including the
distinguished gentleman from Florida, that we will conduct the business
of this House in a much more fair, civil and open way than has been the
norm of the last 12 years. Your views will be heard more than ours
were. Your ideas will be given more consideration than ours were. Your
voices will be more respected than ours were, because that is the right
way to run the people's House.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Title V of
H. Res. 6 and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.
Since the election we have heard promises of grandeur from the new
Democrat majority. They have promised to usher in a new era of
civility, bi-partisanship, and cooperation into the halls of Congress.
They have repeatedly stated that the American people want a civilized
tone in Washington. But it appears the Democrats are ignoring their own
message.
In the opening hours of this Congress, with their very first piece of
business, the Democrats have put forth a resolution that is the
opposite of civility and transparency--indeed, a total contradiction of
the way they pledged to conduct business. For the first time in the
history of this body, Madam Speaker, the Democrats have included closed
rules governing future debate in the House rules package, and have even
gone so far as to prevent the Rules Committee from meeting to
deliberate these rules or the larger rules package.
But they did not stop there, Madam Speaker. After promising an open
and fair process, the Democrats have allowed just 10 minutes of
debate--that's 5 minutes per side--on Title V of this resolution.
This is no small measure, Madam Speaker. Included in Title V are
closed rules governing debate on stem-cell research, the
recommendations of the 9/11 commission, the cost of prescription drugs,
and the federal minimum wage. Certainly the American people expect a
debate of ideas and the proper congressional process for some of the
most important issues facing our Nation. Instead, the Democrats will
deliver 10 minutes of debate.
Further Madam Speaker, Title V of this resolution will prevent the
votes of the Rules Committee from being made public. A veil of secrecy
will fall over this critical committee they now control. This is not
the transparency and accountability in our political process the
Democrats have promised.
So, Madam Speaker, it appears the new age of the Democrat majority
will unfortunately not live up to its much-hyped billing. Instead of
more openness, fairness, and transparency, the Democrats have revealed
the hypocritical nature of their disingenuous promises with their very
first piece of legislation. Reneging on their campaign promises in the
opening hours of this session is no way to build the spirit of trust
and cooperation across the aisle.
Madam Speaker, I hope for the sake of the American people that the
Democrats start adhering to their pre-election rhetoric and conduct the
business of this body in a civilized manner.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 6,
the House Rules Package for the 110th Congress. With the passage of
this resolution, we are committing ourselves to restore honest
leadership, civility, and fiscal responsibility to the U.S. House of
Representatives. It is a commitment that we owe to our constituents and
to our Nation.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, the House of
Representatives was transformed from the people's House into a
legislative body where those who could afford to make their influence
felt far too often held sway. Legislation was enacted that benefited
the wealthy few instead of the vast majority. Legislation was enacted--
often in the middle of the night--without time for review or careful
consideration. Legislation was enacted to benefit those who could
afford to pay for fancy meals and golf vacations while legislation that
would improve wages and the quality of life for working Americans was
ignored. The process was abused, votes were held open, and amendments
were prohibited from being offered. The losers have been the American
public.
Perhaps the single best example of these abuses is the Medicare
Modernization Act, a law which actually prohibits Medicare from
negotiating for drug savings, as the VA and large employers do today,
and by doing so guarantees that senior citizens and persons with
disabilities will pay more than they should for the drugs that they
need. This law would not have been enacted if pharmaceutical companies
had not been allowed to use undue influence, if Democratic conferees
had not been locked out of the negotiations, if Members had not been
intimidated on the House floor, and if the final vote had not been held
open for nearly 3 hours to change the outcome.
During the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we will eliminate
this prohibition and require that Medicare use its bargaining clout on
behalf of consumers. Today, we are taking steps to make sure that the
procedural abuses that were used to enact that prohibition will become
a relic of the past.
We also begin the 110th Congress by putting our financial house in
order. The past 6 years of fiscal mismanagement has turned a $5.6
trillion surplus into an over $3 trillion deficit. The passage of H.
Res. 6 will help us get our current debt and financial crisis under
control while allowing us to make the investments needed for American
families and our economic future.
With the restoration of pay-as-you-go budgeting, Congress will not be
able to increase the deficit and make future generations of Americans
carry a debt load so that today's wealthy can get tax cuts like the
ones passed over the past few years. According to the non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office, those tax cuts, which primarily benefit
the very rich, are the main cause of our country's fiscal reversal.
Reining in the spiraling debt will give us a chance to invest in our
communities, create jobs, provide retirement security, and stimulate
our economy.
Transparency requirements for earmarks will also help us make certain
that taxpayers' dollars are put to good use while eliminating wasteful
spending. I believe that district-specific earmarks on appropriations
or other legislation should not be provided unless they directly
improve our communities. Requiring better disclosure of sponsorship of
earmarks and ensuring that Members have no personal financial interest
in the request will help us guarantee that the funding is targeted to
essential infrastructure improvements, community development, vital
research, and other important programs. Congress has a long history of
providing earmarks for such projects, and I support their continued
funding and eliminating the abuses of earmarks like the ``Bridge to
Nowhere.''
H. Res. 6 is the first action of the 110th Congress. By its passage,
we are demonstrating to the American public that we are going to return
the House of Representatives to its rightful role as being the people's
House--not just in procedures but also in policy.
Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, today the House of
Representatives will consider an important package of reforms that,
when adopted by this chamber, will take the first necessary steps
toward restoring fiscal responsibility in our government. I am proud to
be a cosponsor of these measures, which will allow us to undertake the
critical tasks of balancing our budget and controlling our national
debt.
For too long, our government has operated under a ``buy now, pay
later'' philosophy that,

[[Page 297]]

if left unchanged, will force our children and grandchildren to foot
the bill with increasingly dire consequences. The fiscal responsibility
provisions put forward today will help us avoid this generational buck
passing by imposing some much-needed discipline on the budgeting
process. The package of reforms put forward today accomplishes that by
preventing the House from considering budget measures that would
increase the federal deficit.
One of the most important reforms we are advancing today is the
reinstitution of ``PAYGO'' rules to govern the Congressional budgeting
process. Although the overall budget process can be technical and
complex, ``PAYGO'' simply means what it sounds like: you pay as you go.
The ``PAYGO'' provision creates a barrier to passing legislation that
would further inflate our huge national deficit and mortgage our
country's future.
Congress operated under ``PAYGO'' rules from 1990 until 2002 with
clear results. Under the ``PAYGO'' constraints on spending, our
government was able to balance the budget, create budget surpluses, and
reduce the national debt by $453 billion. Since the mistaken move away
from the ``PAYGO'' rules, deficit spending is back and our national
debt has spiraled out of control. As of today, the total national debt
is almost an astonishing $8.7 trillion or almost $29,000 for every
person in the United States. Disturbingly, much of this debt is held by
America's economic competitors, including China. Instead of
demonstrating the leadership needed to turn this dangerous fiscal tide,
our government has not taken steps to curtail earmarks, our President
has never vetoed a spending bill, and we have yet to demonstrate the
will to do what is necessary.
I am proud to say that with today's reform package we can begin to
change that. It is in our vital interest to get spending under control
to eliminate deficits and return to paying down our debt. It will
require difficult choices and the will to change business as usual in
Washington, but it is our responsibility to meet that challenge by
passing these reforms.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rules
package before us. As we begin the important work of the 110th
Congress, it is imperative that we set the tone for how the people's
work will be conducted in this chamber, which is the people's House.
In the November elections, Democrats offered Americans a new
direction and a more ethical Congress. The American people responded
with great clarity. Exit polls revealed that 74 percent of voters in
November cited corruption as an important issue in determining their
vote.
Now it is our turn to act. That's why we are taking immediate steps
to fulfill the promise of a more ethical Congress by passing a
comprehensive rules package that bans gifts and travel from lobbyists;
requires adequate time to review legislation and bans the insertion of
special interest provisions in the `dead of the night' to ensure that
Members have time to read the bills being considered and know exactly
what is in them; mandates annual ethics training for all Members and
staff; curbs abuses of voting time to ensure that votes are not held
open to change the outcome; requires full disclosure of all earmarks,
as well as requiring that a Member certify that earmarks do not
financially benefit them or their spouses; and reinstates Pay-As-You-Go
budget rules to prevent all new spending and tax cuts from adding to
the federal debt.
Passage of this legislative package will begin the process of
restoring integrity to the House of Representatives, assuring the
people of our country that we are here on their behalf, not our own. I
urge my colleagues to vote for this rules package.
Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the measures
before the House today that will restore civility and fiscal
responsibility to our work. These changes to the existing House rules
are essential if we are to carry out the American people's wish that we
govern wisely, effectively, and in a bipartisan way.
With the votes before us today, Democrats who now find ourselves in
the majority are reaching out to the other side of the aisle to assure
them that we will not treat you as we were treated while we were in the
minority. Through these changes we will make sure that 15-minute votes
are not held open for three hours while votes are bought through arm
twisting and legislative favors; that conference committees will be
open to Republicans as well as Democrats; and that conference
agreements cannot be circumvented through the addition of new language
after they have been signed. Today we vote for the honesty and openness
demanded of us by our constituents and expected in a civil, democratic
society.
Today we also vote for fiscal responsibility. For five long years
now, this Congress has approved, and the President has signed, budget,
spending, and tax bills that have turned an enormous surplus into
staggering deficit, adding tremendous burden to our children and
grandchildren.
As a member of the budget committee for the last two congresses, I
joined my Democratic colleagues in calling for a return to the days of
paygo legislation so that all new spending is offset by corresponding
reductions or new revenue. It is fitting that in our new majority we
take this up as our second order of business. May hardworking families
across this Nation understand that from this point forward, Congress
will spend your money wisely, using the same budget discipline that you
employ each and every day in your spending decisions. The days of
deficit spending are coming to an end.
I thank Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and our entire
leadership team for bringing these issues to the floor and moving the
110th Congress in a new direction. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to solve the challenges facing
this country. The rules changes before us today will help us do that,
and I urge everyone here today to vote in favor of titles 2 and 3 of H.
Res. 6.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). Pursuant to
clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings will resume on questions previously
postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
Adoption of title III of House Resolution 6, by the yeas and nays;
Adoption of title IV of House Resolution 6, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
second electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
The pending business is the vote on adoption of title III of House
Resolution 6, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on that portion of the
divided question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 430,
noes 0, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 8]

YEAS--430

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan

[[Page 298]]

Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Barton (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Neal (MA)
Sullivan

{time} 1246

Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So that portion of the divided question was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the vote on adoption
of title IV of House Resolution 6, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on that portion of the
divided question.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280,
nays 152, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 9]

YEAS--280

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--152

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--3

Brown (SC)
Buyer
Neal (MA)

{time} 1259

Mr. WELLER of Illinois and Mr. POE changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So that portion of the divided question was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). Pursuant to House Resolution
5, the previous question is ordered

[[Page 299]]

on the portion of the divided question comprising title V.
The question is on that portion of the divided question.

Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin moves to commit the resolution (H.
Res. 6) to a select committee composed of the Majority Leader
and the Minority Leader with instructions to report back the
same to the House forthwith with only the following
amendment:
After section 510, insert the following new sections, and
redesignate the following sections (and cross references
thereto) accordingly:

SEC. 511. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH
PLANS

On January 16, 2007, or, if the House is not in session on
such day, the next day on which the House is in session
thereafter, following the third daily order of business under
clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall immediately proceed to
the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 241) to
amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with
small businesses with respect to medical care for their
employees. All points of order against the bill and against
its consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their designees, and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions to be offered by the
Majority Leader or his designee.

SEC. 512. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.

(a) Point of Order Against Congressional Earmarks.--Rule
XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider--
``(1) a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee
unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill
or in the report (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the
committee for each respective item included in such list) or
a statement that the proposition contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits;
``(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a
committee unless the chairman of each committee of initial
referral has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill (and
the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
who submitted a request to the committee for each respective
item included in such list) or a statement that the
proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the
Congressional Record prior to its consideration;
``(3) an amendment to a bill or joint resolution to be
offered at the outset of its consideration for amendment by a
member of a committee of initial referral as designated in a
report of the Committee on Rules to accompany a resolution
prescribing a special order of business unless the proponent
has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the amendment (and
the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
who submitted a request to the proponent for each respective
item included in such list) or a statement that the
proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the
Congressional Record prior to its consideration; or
``(4) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint
resolution unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by
the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the
part of the Senate includes a list of congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the
conference report or joint statement (and the name of any
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator who
submitted a request to the House or Senate committees of
jurisdiction for each respective item included in such list)
or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
``(b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order
that waives the application of paragraph (a). As disposition
of a point of order under this paragraph, the Chair shall put
the question of consideration with respect to the rule or
order that waives the application of paragraph (a). The
question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes
by the Member initiating the point of order and for 10
minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided
without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.
``(c) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of
order raised under paragraph (a) may be based only on the
failure of a report, submission to the Congressional Record,
or joint explanatory statement to include a list required by
paragraph (a) or a statement that the proposition contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits.
``(d) For the purpose of this clause, the term
`congressional earmark' means a provision or report language
included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or
recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for
a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or
other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality or Congressional district, other
than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or
competitive award process.
``(e) For the purpose of this clause, the term `limited tax
benefit' means--
``(1) any revenue-losing provision that--
``(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion,
or preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, and
``(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in
application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such
provision; or
``(2) any Federal tax provision which provides one
beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a
change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(f) For the purpose of this clause, the term `limited
tariff benefit' means a provision modifying the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that
benefits 10 or fewer entities.
(b) Related Amendment to Code of Official Conduct.--Rule
XXIII is amended--
(a) by redesignating clause 16 (as earlier redesignated) as
clause 18; and
(b) by inserting after clause 15 the following new clauses:
``16. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not
condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a
congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited
tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an
accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or
joint resolution (including an accompanying joint explanatory
statement of managers) on any vote cast by another Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. For purposes of this
clause and clause 17, the terms `congressional earmark,'
`limited tax benefit,' and `limited tariff benefit' shall
have the meanings given them in clause 9 of rule XXI.
``17. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
requests a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a
limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an
accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or
joint resolution (or an accompanying joint statement of
managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman
and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction,
including--
``(1) the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner;
``(2) in the case of a congressional earmark, the name and
address of the intended recipient or, if there is no
specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the
activity;
``(3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit,
identification of the individual or entities reasonably
anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner;
``(4) the purpose of such congressional earmark or limited
tax or tariff benefit; and
``(5) a certification that the Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner or spouse has no financial interest in
such congressional earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit.
``(b) Each committee shall maintain the information
transmitted under paragraph (a), and the written disclosures
for any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits included in any measure reported by
the committee or conference report filed by the chairman of
the committee or any subcommittee thereof shall be open for
public inspection.''.

Mr. McGOVERN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 5,
the previous question is ordered on the motion to commit.
The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This 15-minute vote on the motion to commit
will be followed by a 5-minute vote on

[[Page 300]]

title V of House Resolution 6, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200,
nays 232, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 10]

YEAS--200

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--232

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--3

Brown (SC)
Buyer
Neal (MA)

{time} 1320

So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). The question is on the portion
of the divided question comprising title V.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 200, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 11]

YEAS--232

NAYS--200

[[Page 301]]

Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Brown (SC)
Buyer
Neal (MA)

{time} 1328

So that portion of the divided question was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ROBERT T. STAFFORD WHITE ROCKS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration
of the Senate bill (S. 159) to redesignate the White Rocks National
Recreation Area in the State of Vermont as the ``Robert T. Stafford
White Rocks National Recreational Area,'' and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Andrews). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

S. 159

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROBERT T. STAFFORD WHITE ROCKS NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA.

(a) Redesignation.--The White Rocks National Recreation
Area in the State of Vermont, as established by section 202
of the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 460nn-1), is
redesignated as the ``Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National
Recreation Area''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
recreation area referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed
to be a reference to the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks
National Recreation Area.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I
stand here on my first full day as a Member of Congress to say good bye
to a great Vermont statesman. Senator Bob Stafford passed away last
December at the age of 93. I feel a deep sense of pride to have the
first Bill I introduce be one that honors Bob Stafford's commitment to
Vermont by redesignating the White Rocks National Recreation Area as
the ``Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area''.
Senator Stafford was born in Rutland in 1913. He had a long and
distinguished career as a civil servant to the state, serving the state
for nearly 30 years first as Governor, Representative, and Senator.
Robert Stafford was a man who knew Vermont, and understood how to best
serve Vermonters.
It was through his many public service positions around the state
that he learned the importance of moderation and bipartisanship. He
served as Rutland County State's attorney, as Deputy State Attorney
General, and then as State Attorney General. In the late 1950's he was
elected Lieutenant Governor, and in 1959 he became Governor.
In 1960, Bob Stafford was elected to Vermont's sole seat in the U.S.
House of Representatives. He won five successive re-elections. In
September 1971, he resigned his House seat to accept appointment to the
U.S. Senate following the death of Senator Winston Prouty. After
winning a special election in 1972, he proceeded to represent Vermont
in the Senate for the next 17 years.
When he came to Washington, a member of the Republican Party, he
formed many close relationships with members of both parties. Senator
Stafford was able to be effective because of his reliance on moderation
and compromise. He was a leader among his peers, and became an advocate
for issues that were close to him and to Vermont. Affordable education
and his dedication to the environment became his most important issues.
The Stafford Student Loan program has made higher education more
accessible for millions of Americans.
While his achievements in the areas of education and federal disaster
relief were very important, it is the legacy he has left behind for the
work he did in protecting the environment that he was most proud of.
Bob Stafford shared Vermonters' belief that we have a moral obligation
to leave for our children a cleaner environment than the one we
inherited. He was a leader and visionary who helped shape and
strengthen some of our Nation's most critical environmental laws for
over two decades. Serving as Chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee from 1981-1986, he led the charge to expand and
strengthen the Superfund toxic waste cleanup law in the mid 1980's.
Please join me today in honoring the tremendous life and service of
Senator Bob Stafford. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation,
and pass the Congress by unanimous consent.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate our new Member
for getting a bill passed in the first week. That is an incredible
thing to get done.
Then I would like to inquire of my good friend and new majority
leader, Mr. Hoyer, about the schedule for next week.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, I want to say, Mr. Whip, we congratulate you on your
reelection as the whip. I have an affection for whips, as you know, the
position, and I am personally advantaged by our close working
relationship and respect for one another. And I think the American
public hopefully will be advantaged by that. I think this House will be
advantaged by that, and I look forward to working with my good friend,
Roy Blunt.
In addition, all of us on our side appreciated the very gracious
remarks of your leader, Mr. Boehner, when introducing Speaker Pelosi
and passing the gavel to her. We know that is a difficult role. It was
a difficult role for Mr. Gephardt when in 1995 he had that
responsibility, and it was a difficult role for Ms. Pelosi on the two
occasions she had to do it. Your leader was extraordinarily gracious
and positive in that role, and we appreciate that and we want you to
know that.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and at
noon for legislative business. Under the suspension calendar, we will
consider a resolution mourning the passing of President Gerald Ford.
That resolution, I would tell the Members, the principal sponsor of
which is Mr. Vern Ehlers, our colleague on your side of the aisle, who
represents the district

[[Page 302]]

which was so ably and effectively represented by President Ford for
such a long period of time, a quarter of a century.
Mr. Speaker, we will also consider H.R. 1, a bill to implement the 9/
11 Commission recommendations, and a resolution to establish a select
intelligence oversight panel.
I will tell Mr. Blunt we expect votes to be not before 3 to 4 p.m. We
had originally, as you know, thought we might come in Monday. There was
a schedule conflict and we wanted to accommodate that. We are glad we
did. We will try to hold votes until 3 or 4, but west coast Members
will have a difficult time getting back so they ought to plan on being
here on Monday unless they have an important engagement they have to
attend.
On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider H.R. 2,
a bill to increase the minimum wage.
On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider H.R. 3,
a bill regarding stem cell research.
And on Friday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider H.R.
4, a bill regarding the Medicare prescription drug program. We expect
the last votes to be hopefully no later than 2 p.m.
The practice, as you know, will be that we will come in at 6:30 on
Mondays and adjourn no later than 2 p.m. on the day of adjournment.
Many times that will be Friday, sometimes it will be Thursday. We
understand the need for Members to get out. If it is on Thursday, the
expectation is we may go a little later than that, but that will be
generally the practice we will try to pursue.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank my colleague for responding. As he mentioned, we
have had a great working relationship as the whips of the two parties
and look forward to working with him in his new job as the leader of
the majority.
I, too, thought yesterday was an historic day for the House, and a
day that our Members all appreciated the historic nature of the day.
Particularly on this side of the aisle, we appreciated the Speaker's
comments about moving towards partnership as opposed to partisanship;
and we, of course, are eager to see a little more of that partnership
again.
We paid close attention during the election and after the election to
the commitments to the new majority to have bills available in an
earlier way and to have committee and subcommittee markup. I assume the
work next week is work the majority decided will not be able to go
through the subcommittee process or the committee process, and I yield
to my friend to respond to that.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman's assumption is correct. Pursuant to the
rule that was adopted today, we will be moving the six items that we
obviously campaigned on, told the American public that we would move on
within the first 100 hours.
We believe almost all of those items have been broadly discussed,
considered, not only in the election process of approximately 6 months
in duration or longer, but also, for instance, the 9/11 Commission
report which we will consider in the first order of business next week,
vetted by the bipartisan commission, the 9/11 Commission, chaired by
Governor Kean and co-chaired by Mr. Hamilton, so that the gentleman's
assumption is correct.
But that does not mean, I want to make it very clear, that does not
mean that when we get through those items which essentially were the
items focused on during the course of the election, that we will not
hew to what we believe to be a positive step forward in including both
sides in deliberations, in conference reports, in committees and on the
floor.
Mr. BLUNT. As you know, most of our Members voted against the rule
which brings these issues to the floor without the chance to offer an
alternative. We believe there is a desire to create more opportunities
for alternatives, but the sooner that can happen, I think the more
effectively we will show to the American people that we are finding
ways to work together.
We had a pledge also of at least 24 hours of notice on the specifics
of legislation. It doesn't seem to me that is quite as onerous a pledge
to meet in the context of what my friend just said as going through a
subcommittee, going through a committee. We didn't feel like we had
that 24-hour access to information this week. We would hope next week
to have the specifics of the legislation as early as possible. If in
fact this is legislation that doesn't need to go through the committees
because it has been so widely discussed and vetted, it would not seem
to be unreasonable for everybody in the body, every Member to have a
chance to see it even as early as Monday.
Mr. HOYER. I think the gentleman is correct and I am glad the
gentleman said ``as early as Monday.'' It is my understanding those
bills will be available to you this afternoon, and properly so. We want
you to have the opportunity and the American public to have an
opportunity to read and see those bills.
It is my understanding that all of those bills will be introduced by
the close of business today so they will be available to be read over
the weekend and before Monday, and certainly before we come back on
Tuesday.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the response. Seeing the legislation
is obviously helpful. We are really regretful we don't have a chance to
offer an alternative in the real-time. We will look at the legislation.
We will see if we can find a suggestion that will help meet the goals
that we agree with in a more effective way. That 24-hour notice from
now on we would hope would be a pledge that the majority will be able
to retain.
My good friend Mr. Hoyer mentioned the 9/11 Commission report. One of
the recommendations of that commission was a realignment of committees.
We didn't make that realignment of committees in the rules package. I
wonder if there is any plan for that kind of realignment, and I would
yield to the leader for that response.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the whip for that observation. That was one of the
important recommendations that the commission made. Those
recommendations were made, of course, over a year ago, I think. I am
not sure of the exact date, but over a year ago. Your side did not
implement that particular recommendation.
The gentleman is correct, we have not implemented the recommendation
as recommended. What Speaker Pelosi has done, she has discussed with
Leader Boehner what I would refer to as a hybrid of that, not perfect
from I think the Commission standpoint, but meeting in spirit what the
Commission wanted to do. What the Commission wanted to do was empower
the Intelligence Committee with a participation in the appropriations
process, which the Commission perceived would give them a greater
relevance and greater influence.
We agree with that; so as you know, we have suggested and are
implementing a hybrid where the members of the Intelligence Committee
and members of the Defense Appropriations Committee will meet and work
together to accomplish that objective. We hope that will move towards
effecting what the Commission wanted to achieve, while, at the same
time, maintaining the jurisdictional issues which, as you know, in this
body can become very, very acutely debated.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the response.
You may very well have said and I may not have heard, in terms of us
seeing the bills for next week, would you expect that to happen by what
time today?
Mr. HOYER. They are being introduced today and very frankly, Mr.
Whip, I can't give you a time because I don't know. If I knew, I would
give it to you.
Mr. BLUNT. Do you expect them to be introduced all at once, or will
some be available earlier than others?
Mr. HOYER. I am told H.R. 3 was just introduced, is already in the
hopper, and obviously others will come. It is my belief, it has been
represented to me that all of the bills that will be considered next
week will be introduced as of close of business today so that you will
have the balance of today, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and most of
Tuesday to review those bills.

[[Page 303]]

Mr. BLUNT. Certainly seeing the legislation is a step in the right
direction. We believe another step in the right direction will be to be
able to offer the amendments and go through the process that the
majority assured us in the recent campaign will be part of their
procedure.
On the Tuesday schedule, I have had one Member come up to me during
our discussion and wanted me to ask if there is any possibility that 3
to 4 votes could slip closer to 5 just because of a number of travel
concerns that Members have, particularly west coast members.
Mr. HOYER. We could try. But let me say in all fairness, our original
intent was to meet and have votes at 6:30 on Monday. There is a very
important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live
in Ohio and Florida.
In the spirit of comity, and I know if Maryland were playing, I would
want to be accommodated and I want to accommodate my friend, Mr.
Boehner. So we have done that; but it has put us in a position where we
thought we would have come back Monday. That is not the case. We will
have votes as late as possible, but we cannot guarantee. That leaves us
a shorter period of time to do the work we have scheduled. So I cannot
guarantee, but we are going to try to keep it for your Members' sake,
for our Members' sake, and we understand the west coast travel issue,
as late as we can in the day, but cannot guarantee later than 3:30 or 4
o'clock.

{time} 1345

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I would suggest to my good friend, having tried to
put these schedules together for a while, that particularly for our
west coast Members, if they get here on Monday to be here for a 3:30
vote on Tuesday and then find that that Tuesday vote doesn't occur
until 5:30 or 6 o'clock, there is always real anxiety about the day
that costs their families, and I know my good friend is going to try
his very best to give us the best schedule. My only suggestion would be
if you do see that it might slip into that later time that that will be
helpful to Members who, frankly, are having to decide when to leave
their districts and to come a day early just to be here for that 3:30
vote as opposed to a 5:30 vote or 5 o'clock vote that might have
allowed them to leave that day.
And with that, does my friend have any response to that?
Mr. HOYER. The good news is I know that I will get great empathy from
you and Mr. Boehner on this challenge. The second response would be I
want you to know, and you know this from our personal relationship, we
will work very closely with you and Mr. Boehner to try to accommodate
our Members. If we are going to be a civil body, if we are going to
have civility, that means that we are going to have an understanding of
the challenges facing each and every one of our Members irrespective of
party and we intend to do that. I personally intend to do that, and we
will work towards that. Obviously, there are times when Members are
inconvenienced because we have 435, and it is just tough to accommodate
everybody's interests; but to the extent we can do so, it is our
absolute intent to do so. And I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for his response. I would say that
there clearly will be days in this Congress when we just simply don't
agree with the goal that we are trying to achieve on the two sides of
the aisle, but I think we can find many more days when we do agree. We
are optimistic about the concept of partnership as opposed to
partisanship and look forward to having the bills today for next week
and an extended debate in the future beyond the debate that we feel we
will be allowed to have next week.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2007

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, January 8,
2007.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Andrews). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.

____________________

DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in
order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday
next.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

____________________

STAFF SERGEANT EDWARD C. REYNOLDS, JR.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, ``To be born free is an accident, to live free
is a privilege, and to die free is a responsibility.'' Powerful words
spoken by Brigadier General James Sehorn that are embedded into the
minds of our valiant soldiers protecting nations from a cowardly enemy
that burrows beneath the Iraqi desert sands, those individuals that
seek to annihilate our freedoms that all people should have.
The American soldier believes in freedom more than any other
individual on Earth because they witness the inhumanity of tyranny.
They see it in the fierce trenches of battle. Our soldiers secure life
and liberty, and they give it to those folks in Afghanistan and Iraq.
U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Edward Charles Reynolds, Jr. was one of
these soldiers. He was an 8-year Army veteran. Staff Sergeant Reynolds
had been stationed among the terrorist Iraqi insurgents, fighting
against them to ensure a free nation of Iraq.
He is a native of Port Arthur, Texas, and he was a 1997 graduate of
Thomas Jefferson High School, where he was a star tight-end and middle
linebacker on the football team. As a Texan, Staff Sergeant Reynolds
spent fall football seasons cheering for one of the greatest teams in
college football, the University of Texas Longhorns. Those who knew him
knew a man who took care of others, whether it be his family, his
friends, or his country. Staff Sergeant Reynolds was their protector.
Family was the most important thing to Staff Sergeant Reynolds. He
was a devoted father to his children, two daughters and a son. He was
dedicated to his fiancee. He was the guardian of his older sister.
Friends knew him as the man that kept them out of trouble, pushing them
to succeed in life. And his country knew him as a defender of our
freedoms.
In December 2005, Staff Sergeant Reynolds was deployed to Iraq,
worlds away, but he remained a constant presence in the life of his
family and all of his friends. He sent out cards and letters,
constantly reminding his fiancee of their New Year's Eve wedding date.
During the next 10 months, assigned to the U.S. Army 1st Battalion,
67th Armor Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Staff Sergeant
Reynolds dodged bullets, IEDs, and Iraqi outlaws throughout the Baghdad
desert.
But on September 26, less than 2 months from coming home to Texas,
Staff Sergeant Reynolds and a fellow soldier were crossing a Baghdad
bridge in a military convoy when that bridge collapsed, plunging their
vehicle underwater, trapping both soldiers inside. 27-year-old Staff
Sergeant Reynolds and his colleague were killed in action, becoming
victims in the struggle for Iraqi freedom.
A decorated soldier, Staff Sergeant Reynolds was the recipient of the
Combat Infantry Badge, the Kosovo Campaign Medal. He was also awarded
the Iraqi Combat Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism
Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the
Bronze

[[Page 304]]

Star. He was a lifelong member of the Borden Chapel Missionary Baptist
Church. And like his mother and father, Staff Sergeant Reynolds had a
devout faith in his Almighty God, believing that everything he was
given was a gift by Him.
On October 7, the Borden Chapel Missionary Baptist Church in
Beaumont, Texas, and the Reverend Airon Reynolds, Jr., gave this brave
soldier a hero's memorial and homecoming. Family and friends were not
the only ones who memorialized and honored Staff Sergeant Reynolds. The
Patriot Guard Riders and the Southeast Texas Veterans Service thanked
him for his valor. More than 200 Patriot Guard Riders, with flags of
tribute raised, stood in honor of Staff Sergeant Reynolds, the son of
Texas, an American soldier, as he reached his eternal resting place.
Mr. Speaker, I have a photograph of Sergeant Reynolds, the way that
he was when he was protecting freedom across the desert sands of Iraq.
American citizens are born into the privilege of freedom, and we must
remember that the sacrifice given by Staff Sergeant Reynolds and all
American warriors is responsible for the continuation of this great
Nation.
Staff Sergeant Reynolds chose to protect the freedom that he was born
into from the violent militants robbing nations of life and liberty. So
God bless Staff Sergeant Reynolds and his family.
In the words of George Orwell: ``We sleep safely in our beds because
rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would
do us harm.''
And that's just the way it is

____________________

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RUTGERS SCARLET KNIGHTS FOOTBALL TEAM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that my colleague
from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, is the Speaker this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to congratulate the
Rutgers Scarlet Knights on their recent victory over Kansas State in
the Texas Bowl. Last Thursday the Scarlet Knights cruised to a 37-10
victory over the Kansas State Wildcats, capping their memorable season
with the first bowl win in school history.
Running back Ray Rice led the winning effort with 170 yards rushing
and a touchdown. Wide receiver Tim Brown scored two touchdowns, which,
combined with Rutgers' stifling defense, was more than enough to put
away Kansas State. The defense held Kansas State under 200 total yards
and did not allow an offensive touchdown.
Coach Greg Schiano led his team to an 11-win season this year for
only the second time in Rutgers' history. In his five short years since
becoming head coach at Rutgers, Coach Schiano has turned the program
around from a 2-9 record in the basement of the Big East to an elite
football program near the top of the BCS standings. And Coach Schiano
has received national recognition as the coach of the year, as well as
Big East honors as coach of the year.
Mr. Speaker, also deserving of recognition are university president
Richard McCormick and Rutgers athletic director Bob Mulcahy. During
their tenure, Rutgers athletics, particularly the football program, has
reached a high standard athletically and academically. The American
Football Coaches Association has recognized Rutgers football for a high
level of academic achievement among student athletes. Additionally,
Rutgers student athletes have played a large role in the community by
becoming involved with toy drives, hospital visits, and blood drives.
Mr. Speaker, the hard work, dedication, and teamwork exhibited by the
Rutgers football program embodies the highest traditions of scholar
athletes and serves as an inspiration to all New Jerseyans.
And once again I would like to congratulate the entire Rutgers
athletic program and the university as a whole for this remarkable
achievement. I look forward to cheering them to even greater success in
the future ``in that noisy college town on the banks of the old
Raritan.''

____________________

THE WAR IN IRAQ

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is dead. So are 3,000
Americans. The regime in Iraq has been changed; yet victory will not be
declared. Not only does the war go on; it is about to escalate.
Obviously, the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever and most Americans no
longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic,
associated with this war.
We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been
killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months in Vietnam. I
was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President
Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. That war
went on for another decade. And by the time we finally finished that
war and got out, 60,000 Americans had died. We obviously should have
gotten out 10 years sooner. Troop surge then meant serious escalation.
The election is over and Americans have spoken: enough is enough.
They want the war ended and our troops brought home. But the opposite
is likely to occur. With bipartisan support, up to 50,000 troops may
well be sent. The goal no longer is to win. Now it is simply to secure
Baghdad. So much has been spent with so little to show for it.
Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives
unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for
promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the
turmoil in Iraq, as have Iranian Shiites who are now in a better
position to take control of southern Iraq.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead, and only Sunnis mourn. The Shiites and
Kurds celebrate his death, as do the Iranians and especially bin Laden,
all enemies of Saddam Hussein. We have performed a tremendous service
for both bin Laden and Ahmadinejad, and it will cost us plenty. The
violent reaction to our complicity in the execution of Saddam Hussein
is yet to come.
Three thousand American military personnel are dead. More than 22,000
are wounded, and tens of thousands will be psychologically traumatized
by their tours of duty in Iraq. Little concern is given to the hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. We have spent $400
billion so far with no end in sight. This money we do not have. It is
all borrowed from countries like China that increasingly succeed in the
global economy while we drain wealth from our citizens through heavy
taxation and insidious inflation. Our manufacturing base is now nearly
extinct. Where the additional U.S. troops in Iraq will come from is
anybody's guess, but surely they won't be redeployed from Japan, Korea,
or Europe.
We at least must pretend that our bankrupt empire is intact, but then
again, the Soviet empire appeared intact in 1988. Some Members of
Congress intent on equitably distributing the suffering among all
Americans want to bring back the draft. Administration officials
vehemently deny making any concrete plans for a draft.
But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many
believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq.
Selective Service officials admit running a check of their list of
available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will
include young women as well to serve the God of equality. Conscription
is slavery, plain and simple, and it was made illegal under the 13th
amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be
killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous
kind of enslavement.
Instead of testing the efficacy of the Selective Service System and
sending more troops off to a war that we are losing, we ought to revive
our love of liberty. We should repeal the Selective

[[Page 305]]

Service Act. A free society should never depend on compulsory
conscription to defend itself.
We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or
obeying the rule of law. Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false
pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by
Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never
would have been fought.
If we did not create credit out of thin air, as the Constitution
prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war
directly by increased taxation. How long this financial charade can go
on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes, it will not go
unnoticed by any American.

____________________

{time} 1400
THE MANDATE TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Andrews). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday all of my colleagues and I took
the oath of office as a Member of this great House of Representatives,
swearing to support and to defend the Constitution of the United States
of America. I take this responsibility very seriously.
I take my responsibility to my constituents very seriously, and
sometimes that means standing up to the executive branch when I believe
it is in error, when it has gone too far or is openly ignoring the
wishes of the people of America. This is what our founding fathers
expected of the Congress, and, quite frankly, this is what the American
people expect from the Congress.
Today I stand here and give my 174th 5-minute special order speech
calling for an end to this misguided occupation in Iraq and calling on
the President and all of my colleagues to support our troops by
bringing them home. Already, over 3,000 American troops have been
killed in Iraq, at least 44,000 have been wounded. Reports indicate
that anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 Iraqis, it is probably more, have
lost their lives.
How many more families must grieve? How many more children must be
orphaned? How many?
The voters sent a clear message on November 7 that Congress must
stand up and say no more. The Iraq Study Group also sent a message. I
was clear that the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Even
President Bush finally admitted last month that we are, and he said, we
are not winning in Iraq, although he also said we are not losing.
Enough Washington double-speak. It is time for action. How about a
plan for the future of Iraq from President Bush? We have already spent
nearly $400 billion on this occupation, and yet he is asking for $127
billion more. We already have 130,000 troops on the ground, and now we
hear that he wants to send even more. He is calling it a surge. Let us
be honest here, sending in more troops to clean up the mess the
President has already made is an escalation. Enough is enough. No more
fuzzy math, no more sloganeering, no more troops dying, no more.
Soon I will introduce a comprehensive package to bring our troops
home while supporting Iraqi sovereignty. I urge my colleagues, please
work with me to bring this real and workable bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the voters have demanded an end to President Bush's
occupation of Iraq. They don't want more talk, they want a real plan.
They want a plan that will bring our troops home. This is our mandate,
and this is the oath we swore to yesterday.

____________________

HONORING ANATOLE MILUNAS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in session and back
in Washington. I look forward to a very interesting new Congress.
One of the great benefits of being a Member is the opportunity to
talk about our national treasure, which is our citizens. We just lost
one who became a good friend of mine, doesn't live in my Congressional
district, is from the state of Illinois, name of Tony Milunas.
Now, Tony, is the story of a lot of post World War II era emigres who
came from the former captive nations, the former Eastern Bloc countries
that immigrated here, became active citizens, not only supported this
great country, served in the military, but also was very involved in
the 50 years of totalitarian ruling of the Eastern Bloc countries and
helped bring freedom to those countries. With that I am going to give a
little background on Tony and mention how he was very important in my
life.
Anatole Milunas, ``Tony,'' as we knew him, was born August 3, 1936 in
the City of Sauliai, Lithuania. During World War II, he left Lithuania
to escape the second Soviet occupation and the subsequent 50 years of
terror. While in exile in 1946, he finished high school and began
studying for a degree in technology in Darmstadt, Germany.
After he immigrated to the United States, he continued his schooling
and graduated with a bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois.
During the Korean War, he served in the United States Army, stationed
in Germany as a translator and adviser to a staff officer.
He actively participated in the presidential election of President
Ronald Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush, and has been a
strong supporter of the Illinois Republican Party. From 1979 to 1985,
he was a chairman of the Lithuanian American Republican National
Federation, and from 1994 to 2006, Mr. Milunas was the chairman of the
Lithuanian American Republican League in Illinois.
He died December 23, 2006. He left a widow, Dana, and two sons,
Vytenis and Rimas, two good Lithuanian names, their families and many
relatives here in Lithuania as well as friends and so many associates.
He leaves behind a lasting legacy.
Now, I met Tony way back in 1992 when he looked at the family name of
politicians running for office, and my colleagues here, who I have
served with for many years, know that I have focused some of my extra
time on Baltic issues, which is Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Not
because I have a strong Baltic number of citizens in my district, and,
in fact, it is very little, but Shimkus is ethnically Lithuanian.
Tony, seeing that name said, and being Republican, says, oh, I found
a guy who will help me remember the persecution of the Baltic countries
and help bring freedom, NATO enlargement, EU ascension to the Baltic
countries.
He adopted me, in essence, and he encouraged me to not only be
involved here on the floor, but really be involved in what for me is
four generations removed. He is one generation, I am four generations.
Tony gave me this photo back on October 18, 2002, to the Honorable
John Shimkus, we are proud to have you as an honorary member while we
continue the Reagan legacy, Lithuanian Republican League of Illinois,
Anatole Milunas. This is a photo of President Reagan when he is
campaigning in Chicago. Now I am a down-stater, I am more by St. Louis
and what we call southern Illinois. This was a picture Tony was very,
very proud of. This was at an ethnic festival, then candidate Reagan
was there. Tony handed him this bumper sticker that said, ``I love
Lithuanians,'' and here is President Reagan holding this up.
As we know, it was President Reagan that was in Berlin and said, Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall, which is all part of the fall of the
Soviet empire and the freeing of millions of people in what we call the
captive nations.
I was glad to play a small part in the movement to enlarge NATO and
bring in the former captive nations that love democracy and freedom,
willing to take and pay the sacrifice, transform their militaries and
be true allies.
One of the reasons why I was able to do that is because of the
mentorship, the friendship, the love, the compassion of this U.S.
citizen who was born

[[Page 306]]

in Sauliai, Lithuania, who came to this country with nothing, lived the
American dream, was a great citizen, but had an appreciation for his
homeland.

____________________

GAS PRICES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the new Democratic
leadership that will finally allow the U.S. House of Representatives to
address high energy prices. Under prior Republican leadership in the
House, the oil industry enjoyed years of record profits, record high
gas prices and minimal oversight and price manipulation.
Curiously, in September and October of 2006, just before the November
elections, gas prices dropped an average of $.60 per gallon compared to
the record high prices of last summer. This $.60 drop in gas prices
occurred despite the fact that there were pipeline disruptions in
Alaska and indications that OPEC would cut oil production. Department
of Energy's statistics show us that while gas prices dropped an average
of $.60 a gallon in September and October, the crude oil price only
dropped 10 cents a gallon.
If you listened to National Public Radio this week, you would have
heard that there is evidence that the oil companies intentionally
influence gas price fluctuations, and a $.60 drop was done just before
the election to influence the November elections.
For years, the American Petroleum Institute, the oil companies' main
lobbying group, has spent millions of dollars on public relations
campaigns to convince the American people that gas prices are a direct
result of crude oil prices, not oil company practices. But yet we have
a 60 percent drop in gas prices, but only a 10 percent drop in the
price of crude.
Ignoring their own PR, oil companies were able to significantly
reduce the gas prices in September and October without a corresponding
decrease in their crude oil price. Some consumer advocates, such as the
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, have accused oil companies
of purposefully reducing gas prices in the months before the election
to help Republican candidates.
Since November, gas prices have already increased an average of 15
cents a gallon. This is not the first time the oil companies have been
accused of attempting to manipulate markets for their benefit.
Internal memos from several oil companies written in the 1990s have
revealed that the big oil companies have worked to limit refinery
capacity here in the United States, allowing these companies to control
the supply and cost of gasoline.
In May of 2006, the Federal Trade Commission released its report
titled Investigation of Gasoline Price Manipulation and Post-Katrina
Gasoline Price Increases. In this report, the Federal Trade Commission
found that after Hurricane Katrina refiners, wholesalers and retailers
charged significantly higher prices that did not result from either
increased costs or market friends.
FTC Commissioner John Liebowitz, in a statement on the report,
acknowledged that, and I quote, ``that the behavior of many market
participants, on balance, leaves much to be desired.''

{time} 1415

Democrats have repeatedly urged the House Republican leadership to
protect America's pocketbooks and not that of Big Oil. Nonetheless, the
Republican leadership refused to take action last fall on high gas
prices. The American people have now chosen a new direction with
Democrats in charge.
During the first 100 legislative hours of this, the 110th Congress,
the House of Representatives will consider legislation to end the tax
breaks and special subsidies for oil companies. For too long, oil
companies have benefited from weak royalty laws, tax breaks and
subsidies, at the same time making record profits at the expense of the
American people.
Rather than helping oil companies' bottom lines, these funds that we
will recapture will instead be used to promote alternative energy
sources to end our Nation's addiction to oil.
Later this year I look forward to having an open and honest debate on
my legislation, which I plan to reintroduce soon, to end gas price
gouging.
Last year over 120 Members cosponsored my legislation to create a
Federal law against price gouging for gasoline, natural gas, and other
fuel.
I look forward to continuing to work towards greater oversight of the
oil and gas trading, especially off-market trades known as ``over the
counter'' trades.
I will be re-introducing my legislation, the Prevent Unfair
Manipulation of Prices Act, to improve oversight of these trades and
strengthen the penalties for traders who attempt to illegally
manipulate markets.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect consumers from
high gas prices. I look forward to being able to address high energy
prices, to provide our constituents with the protection they need and
so desperately deserve.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to enter into the Record a one-
page article from National Public Radio about how ``in other words, in
the run-up to the election, oil companies cut gasoline prices 500
percent more than their raw material costs fell. And it wasn't because
refining and distribution costs rose. They were relatively stable. Oil
companies simply took less profit from their refineries for a short
period of time.''

Gas-Price Conspiracy? You Bet!

Commentator and consumer advocate Jamie Court says there IS
evidence that oil companies intentionally influence gas-price
fluctuations.

TEXT OF COMMENTARY

KAI RYSSDAL: The 110th Congress will be sworn in on
Thursday. Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has promised a whirlwind
first 100 hours of the session. On the Democrats' list of
things to do is cut subsidies to the oil industry. Perhaps as
a result, the American Petroleum Institute--that's big oil's
main lobbying group--is launching a public relations
offensive. Complete with Congressional oil patch tours, and
contributions to friendly think tanks. It's trying to
convince people rising energy prices are simply the result of
higher demand and shrinking supply.
Commentator and consumer advocate Jamie Court says that
campaign is too slick by half.
JAMIE COURT: Say you're an oil executive and you want to
keep the Republicans in control of Congress. What can you do
prior to an election? Well, you can keep your refineries
running at full speed, flood the market with extra fuel, and
take less per gallon in profit than usual. And guess what:
Department of Energy data suggest that's exactly what the oil
companies did this fall. By the second week in October,
gasoline prices fell 70 cents from summer's record highs.
Refineries were running full throttle and America's gasoline
inventories were up nearly 7 percent from the three previous
Octobers. The rise in supply came despite BP's major pipeline
disruption in Alaska. Ordinarily, that's an industry excuse
to shrink supplies and raise prices. Now, the oil industry
claimed pump prices fell because crude oil prices dropped.
But gas prices dropped far more steeply than crude oil. Crude
oil comes in barrels. There are 42 gallons in a barrel and
the price of each gallon was down 10 cents this October over
last. But gas prices fell 61 cents a gallon over the same
time last year.
In other words, in the run-up to the election, oil
companies cut gasoline prices 500 percent more than their raw
material cost fell. And it wasn't because refining and
distribution costs rose. They're relatively stable. Oil
companies simply took less profit from their refineries for a
short period of time. Could it have been to influence a
political outcome? Well, right after election day, the price
of gas suddenly rose after two months of sharp decline. Post-
election, refineries have slowed down, inventories are
shrinking, and gas prices are climbing. It's back to business
as usual, unless the new Congress starts to do business
differently.

____________________

RECOGNIZING APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY MOUNTAINEERS AND WAKE FOREST
DEMON DEACONS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary
efforts of the Appalachian State Mountaineers football team, who
recently defeated

[[Page 307]]

the Massachusetts Minutemen in a 28-17 victory. What makes this a
magnificent triumph is that this is the second straight year the
Mountaineers have brought home the NCAA Division 1 football
championship subdivision, formerly recognized as Division 1-AA. The
Mountaineers finished their season with a 14-1 record, losing only
their first game of the season and going undefeated all the way through
to the championship game after that.
I am honored to represent Appalachian State University, as they have
not only a stellar academic program but also have succeeded in
athletics as well. This shows the diversity and accomplishments of
Appalachian State as they exemplify a true student body where life
lessons are learned through extracurricular activities as well as
rigorous academic study.
I am pleased to recognize the momentous accomplishments of junior
Kevin Richardson who scored all four touchdowns and had 179 rushing
yards that led the Mountaineers to victory in the championship game.
Although Massachusetts had started the game with an early lead, the
Mountaineers persevered, worked as a team, and never gave up.
The Mountaineers had tremendous support from their fellow classmates,
alumni and residents of Boone, North Carolina. Not only have they
received this support on their home field, Kidd Brewer Stadium, the
gridiron, but also when the Mountaineers traveled for their games. At
the playoff game, an enormous crowd of 22,808 included over 15,000
Appalachian State Black and Gold dressed fans at Finley Stadium in
Chattanooga, Tennessee. With great anticipation of another Mountaineer
victory, the attendance set a record for Finley Stadium at the
University of Tennessee where the game was played. While the game was
played and won by the Appalachian State football team, the tremendous
support of friends, family, alumni and North Carolina residents set an
exciting tone and surely assisted the team by showing their dedicated
support. Also notable was that this was the 12th time in the 15 games
this season that the Mountaineers played before a sold out crowd.
I extend my deepest congratulations to all the Mountaineers who
played with dedication, perseverance and, most of all, heart. I also
applaud the tremendous coaching staff, including head coach Jerry
Moore, who has been with Appalachian State University for 18 years,
serving the athletic program with enthusiasm and steadfast commitment.
His service, along with the entire coaching staff, has been invaluable
in guiding the team to their great successes.
Congratulations, again, Appalachian State Mountaineers for your
tremendous success in back to back NCAA titles. You are definitely a
source of pride for western North Carolina.
It is also my pleasure to commend the Wake Forest Demon Deacon
football team on an outstanding season. Prior to the start of the
season, the Deacons were predicted to finish last in their division of
the Atlantic Coast Conference. However, they were not discouraged by
these predictions and actually seemed to revel in the role of the
underdog. Ultimately, Wake Forest shocked the Nation by finishing the
regular season 11-2, which placed them at the top of the Atlantic
Division in the ACC. They then defeated the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
in the Atlantic Coast Conference Champion game, making Wake Forest ACC
champions for the first time since 1970.
Much of the team's success this year is due to its resilience,
tenacity, and impeccable coaching. Wake Forest coach Jim Grobe was
unanimously named ACC Coach of the Year and beat out a strong group of
national contenders to be named the 2006 NCAA National Coach of the
Year. Coach Grobe and the Deacons battled injuries to several key
players, including their starting quarterback and starting tailback,
but bounced back in the face of adversity to set a school record for
victories.
After such an unbelievable season, no one was surprised when the
Deacons were chosen to play the 2007 Orange Bowl. The reigning ACC
champs traveled down to Miami, with their fans in tow, to face the
champions of the Big East Conference, the Louisville Cardinals. Wake
Forest came into the game well prepared and played like the champions
they are. While Louisville emerged victorious, Wake fans and players
alike left Miami with their heads held high, proud of a season full of
accomplishments.
The Orange Bowl culminated a magical season for the Demon Deacons,
one that Wake fans will never forget. Finishing the regular season 11-
2, serving Florida State its first-ever shutout at home under the
leadership of Coach Bobby Bowden, winning the ACC championship and
appearing in the Orange Bowl can be considered highlights. But by no
means could these achievements capture the spirit and the emotion of
this phenomenal season for the Wake Forest Demon Deacons. The
sentiments of this season can best be summed up in the 10 minutes
following the Orange Bowl on January 2. Even though the Deacons lost,
Wake fans remained in the stands after the game, standing and cheering
in support of the team that brought them so much joy this season as
Wake players walked to their side of the stadium to thank the fans for
their steadfast support.
This relationship underlines what it means to be a Deacon fan. Wins
and losses ultimately aren't all that matter, but rather the sense of
pride and family that comes along with being a Deacon is what makes the
Wake Forest team and the fans such a special group.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, Go Deacs.
There may have been a few tears shed in Dolphins Stadium following
this year's Orange Bowl, but they were not tears of sadness. They were
tears of pride and accomplishment, and they were very hard earned.
Congratulations to Wake Forest, and best of luck next season. We know
it will be every bit as exciting as this one. Go Deacs!

____________________

STATUS REPORT ON CURRENT SPENDING LEVELS OF ON-BUDGET SPENDING AND
REVENUES FOR FY 2007 AND THE 5-YEAR PERIOD FY 2007 THROUGH FY 2011

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget
spending and revenues for fiscal year 2007 and for the five-year period
of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. This report is necessary to
facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act and sections 401 and 501 of H. Con. Res. 376, which is
currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the
House under H. Res. 6. This status report is current through January 1,
2007. An additional report will be filed to reflect any changes in
committee jurisdictions.
The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and
revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or
awaiting the President's signature.
The first table in the report compares the current levels of total
budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set
by H. Con. Res. 376. This comparison is needed to enforce section
311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against
measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels.
The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after
fiscal year 2007 because appropriations for those years have not yet
been considered.
The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and
outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the
``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 376 for fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal years 2007 through 2011. ``Discretionary action''
refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget
resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the
Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would
breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget
authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also
needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that
comply with their allocations from the point of order under section
311(a).

[[Page 308]]

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary
appropriations for fiscal year 2007 with the ``section 302(b)''
suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among
Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce
section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that
section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable
section 302(b) suballocation.
The fourth table gives the current level for 2008 of accounts
identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res.
376. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget
resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills
that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the
statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such
appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.
The fifth table provides the current level of the nondefense reserve
fund for emergencies established by section 501 of H. Con. Res. 376.
The table is required by section 505 of the budget resolution, and is
needed to determine whether an increase in the reserve fund,
allocations and aggregates will be necessary for any pending
legislation that contains emergency-designated discretionary budget
authority.

REPORT TO THE SPEAKER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET--STATUS OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 2007 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ADOPTED IN HOUSE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 376
Reflecting action completed as of January 1, 2007--[On-budget amounts,
in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Fiscal year years 2007-
2007 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriate Level:
Budget authority.......................... 2,283,029 \1\
Outlays................................... 2,325,998 \1\
Revenues.................................. 1,780,666 10,039,909
Current Level:
Budget authority.......................... 2,266,002 \1\
Outlays................................... 2,273,560 \1\
Revenues.................................. 1,771,853 10,146,069
Current Level over (+) / under (-) Appropriate
Level:
Budget authority.......................... -17,027 \1\
Outlays................................... -52,438 \1\
Revenues.................................. -8,813 106,160
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not applicable because annual appropriations Acts for fiscal years
2008 through 2011 will not be considered until future sessions of
Congress.

BUDGET AUTHORITY

Enactment of measures providing new budget authority for FY
2007 in excess of $17,027,000,000 (if not already included in
the current level estimate) would cause FY 2007 budget
authority to exceed the appropriate level set by H. Con. Res.
376.

OUTLAYS

Enactment of measures providing new outlays for FY 2007 in
excess of $52,438,000,000 (if not already included in the
current level estimate) would cause FY 2007 outlays to exceed
the appropriate level set by H. Con. Res. 376.

REVENUES

Enactment of measures that would reduce revenue for FY 2007
(if not already included in the current estimate) would cause
revenues to fall further below the appropriate level set by
H. Con. Res. 376.
Enactment of measures resulting in revenue reduction for
the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 in excess of
$106,160,000,000 (if not already included in the current
level estimate) would cause revenues to fall below the
appropriate levels set by H. Con. Res. 376.

DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REFLECTING ACTION COMPLETED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007
[Fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2007-2011 Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BA Outlays BA Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Committee
Agriculture:
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.......................... 0 0 0 0
Armed Services:
Allocation.......................... 45 45 45 45
Current level....................... -35 150 34 213
Difference.......................... -80 105 -II 168
Education and Labor:
Allocation.......................... 0 1 0 30
Current level....................... 16 119 178 -1,733
Difference.......................... 16 118 178 -1,763
Energy and Commerce:
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... -63 72 39 49
Difference.......................... -63 72 39 49
Financial Services:
Allocation.......................... 0 0 2 2
Current level....................... 0 0 -5 -5
Difference.......................... 0 0 -7 -7
Foreign Affairs:
Allocation.......................... 1 1 5 5
Current level....................... 0 -5 0 -12
Difference.......................... -I -6 -5 -17
Homeland Security:
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... 106 7 0 0
Difference.......................... 106 7 0 0
House Administration:
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.......................... 0 0 0 0
Judiciary
Allocation.......................... 19 16 116 113
Current level....................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.......................... -19 -16 -1l6 -113
Natural Resources:
Allocation.......................... 0 0 6 6
Current level....................... 26 26 133 133
Difference.......................... 26 26 127 127
Oversight and Government Reform
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... -6,384 -6,384 -21,500 -21,500
Difference.......................... -6,384 -6,384 -21,500 -21,500
Science and Technology
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.......................... 0 0 0 0
Small Business:
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.......................... 0 0 0 0
Transportation and Infrastructure:
Allocation.......................... 13 13 22 22
Current level....................... 0 -3 -4 -19
Difference.......................... -13 -16 -26 -41
Veterans' Affairs
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... -2 -2 1 1

[[Page 309]]

Difference.......................... -2 -2 1 1
Ways and Means
Allocation.......................... 0 0 0 0
Current level....................... 4,622 4,538 6,338 6,282
Difference.......................... 4,622 4,538 6,338 6,282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATION AND APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE 302(b) SUBALLOCATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) Suballocations as of June Current Level Reflecting Action Current Level minus
6, 2006 (H. Rpt. 109-488) Completed as of January 1, 2007 Suballocations
Appropriations Subcommittee -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA OT BA OT BA OT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA............... 17,812 19,497 17,803 19,402 -9 -95
Defense........................................... 377,357 393,165 377,357 394,244 0 1,079
Energy & Water Development........................ 30,017 31,411 28,926 30,751 -1,091 -660
Foreign Operations................................ 21,300 23,441 19,609 23,144 -1,691 -297
Homeland Security................................. 32,080 38,711 31,905 38,714 -175 3
Interior-Environment.............................. 25,889 26,902 25,471 26,566 -418 -336
Labor, HHS & Education............................ 141,930 145,631 150,573 147,619 8,643 1,988
Legislative Branch................................ 4,030 4,013 3,756 3,797 -274 -216
Military Quality of Life-Veterans Affairs......... 94,705 88,728 86,260 84,457 -8,445 -4,271
Science-State-Justice-Commerce.................... 59,839 62,143 7,709 60,479 -2,130 -1,664
Transportation-Treasury-HUD-Judiciary-DC.......... 67,819 130,069 67,124 128,714 -695 -1,355
Unassigned........................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (Section 302(a) Allocation)........... 872,778 963,711 866,493 957,887 -6,285 -5,824
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of FY2008 advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con.
Res. 376, reflecting action completed as of January 1, 2007

[Budget Authority in Millions of Dollars]

Budget authority
Appropriate Level................................................23,565
Current Level....................................................... 0
Elk Hills....................................................... 0
Corporation for Public Broadcasting............................. 0
Employment and Training Administration.......................... 0
Education for the Disadvantaged................................. 0
School Improvement.............................................. 0
Children and Family Services (Head Start)....................... 0
Special Education............................................... 0
Vocational and Adult Education..................................
Transportation (highways, transit, Farley Building)............. 0
Payment to Postal Service....................................... 0
Section 8 Renewals.............................................. 0
__________

Total......................................................... 0
Current Level over (+)/under (-) Appropriate Level -23,565

Statement of nondefense reserve fund for emergencies under section 501
of H. Con. Res. 376, discretionary budget authority for FY 2007,
reflecting action completed as of January 1, 2007

[Budget Authority in Millions of Dollars]

Budget authority
Appropriate Level.................................................6,450
Current Level....................................................... 0
__________

Current Level over (+)/under (-) Appropriate Level -6,450
U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, January 4, 2007.
Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
Chairman-Designate, Committee on the Budget,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman: The enclosed report shows the effects of
Congressional action on the fiscal year 2007 budget and is
current through January 1, 2007. This report is submitted
under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the
Congressional Budget Act, as amended.
The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues
are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of
H. Con. Res. 376, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2007, as approved by the House of
Representatives. Although the House and the Senate have not
reached agreement on a concurrent budget resolution for 2007,
pursuant to House Resolution 818, H. Con. Res. 376 has the
force and effect in the House for all purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as though adopted by the
Congress.
Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, and section
402 of H. Con. Res. 376, the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, provisions designated as
emergency requirements are exempt from enforcement of the
budget resolution. As a result, the enclosed current level
report excludes certain amounts that affect 2007 spending
(see footnote 2 of the report).
Since my last letter, dated November 15, the Congress has
cleared and the President has signed the following acts that
affect budget authority, outlays, or revenues for fiscal year
2007:
an act making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 2007 (Public Law 109-383);
an act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise
certain repayment contracts (Public Law 109-386);
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
432);
the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law
109-435);
the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of
2006 (Public Law 109-458);
the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information
Technology Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-461); and
the Social Security Trust Funds Restoration Act of 2006
(Public Law 109-465).
In addition, the Congress has cleared for the President's
signature the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (H.R. 5946) and the
National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 6164).
Sincerely,
Donald B. Marron,
Acting Director.
Enclosure.

FISCAL YEAR 2007 HOUSE CURRENT LEVEL REPORT AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted in previous sessions:\1\
Revenues........................................... n.a. n.a. 1,819,599
Permanents and other spending legislation.......... 1,400,673 1,333,068 n.a.
Appropriation legislation.......................... 0 409,185 n.a.
Offsetting receipts................................ -549,710 -549,710 n.a.
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, enacted in previous sessions:............. 850,963 1,192,543 1,819,599
--------------------------------------------------------
Enacted this session:
Authorizing Legislation:
An act to make available funds included in the -1,000 -520 0
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year
2006 (P.L. 109-204)...............................
Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2006 11 11 11
(P.L. 109-221)....................................

[[Page 310]]

Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 0 0 -32,674
2005 (P.L. 109-222)...............................
Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities Act (P.L. 0 0 -4
109-227)..........................................
Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits -3 -3 0
Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-233)............
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (P.L. 109- 0 0 1
235)..............................................
Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 1 0 5
2006 (P.L. 109-236)...............................
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 0 -3 0
(P.L. 109-241)....................................
Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006 (P.L. 109- 0 1 0
250)..............................................
An act approving the renewal of import restrictions 0 0 -1
contained in the Burmese Freedom Democracy Act of
2003 (P.L. 109-251)...............................
An act to provide funding authority to facilitate 0 -5 0
the evacuation of persons from Lebonon (P.L. 109-
268)..............................................
Pension Protection Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-280)...... 15 119 363
United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement 1 1 -15
Implementation Act (P.L. 109-283).................
Pueblo de San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act of 7 7 0
2005 (P.L. 109-286)...............................
Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 0 -10 0
(P.L. 109-288)....................................
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 1 1 0
Maintenance Fund Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-314).......
National Heritage Areas Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-338). 3 3 0
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 106 7 0
2006 (P.L. 109-347)...............................
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for -35 150 0
Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109-364)...................
Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights 4 4 0
Settlement Revision Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-373)....
An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 1 1 0
to revise certain repayment contracts (P.L. 109-
386)..............................................
Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109- 3,323 3,248 -15,600
432)..............................................
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (P.L. 109- -6,384 -6,384 0
435)..............................................
Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance -1 -1 0
Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-458)........................
Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information 1 1 0
Technology Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-461).............
Social Security Trust Funds Restoration Act of 2006 1,298 1,298 0
(P.L. 109-465)....................................
Appropriations Acts:
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 0 -14 168
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234)\2\..................
Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-289)\2\. 377,571 252,047 0
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 32,968 20,406 0
109-295)\2\.......................................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, enacted this session:..................... 407,888 270,365 -47,746
--------------------------------------------------------
Passed, pending signature:
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 2 2 0
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (H.R. 5946)
National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006 -65 70 0
(H.R. 6164).......................................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, passed, pending signature:................ -63 72 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Continuing Resolution Authority:
Continuing Resolution, 2007 (P.L. 109-383)......... 436,112 262,309 0
Entitlements and mandatories:
Budget resolution estimates of appropriated 571,102 548,271 n.a.
entitlements and other mandatory programs not yet
enacted...........................................
Total Current Level 2,\3\.............................. 2,266,002 2,273,560 1,771,853
Total Budget Resolution................................ 2,283,029 2,325,998 1,780,666
Current Level Over Budget Resolution............... n.a. n.a. n.a.
Current Level Under Budget Resolution.............. 17,027 52,438 8,813
Memorandum:
Revenues, 2007-2011:
House Current Level............................ n.a. n.a. 10,146,069
House Budget Resolution........................ n.a. n.a. 10,039,909
Current Level Over Budget Resolution........... n.a. n.a. 106,160
Current Level Under Budget Resolution.......... n.a. n.a. n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--n.a. = not applicable; P.L. = Public Law.

\1\The effects of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform
Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-173) are included in this section of the table, consistent with
the budget resolution assumptions. In addition, the scoring for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 includes
savings from corrections to two provisions (in sections 8006 and 10002) not yet enacted, consistent with the
budget resolution assumptions.

\2\Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, thee Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006,
and section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, as approved
by the House of Representatives, provisions designated as emergency requirements are exempt from enforcement
of the budget resolution. The amounts so designated are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 48 39,863 0
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Rocovery, 2006
(P.L. 109-234)........................................
Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-289)........ 70,000 40,473 0
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109- 1,829 943 0
295)..................................................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, enacted emergency requirements:............. 71,877 81,279 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These amounts are generally excluded from the curent level. However, section 402 of the 2007 budget resolution
specifies that upon enactment of funding for the global war on terrorism, amounts included in the budget
resolution for such purpose shall be considered current law when preparing the current level. Therefore, the
current level includes $50,000 million in budget authority and $33,500 million in outlays assumed in the
budget resolution.

\3\Excludes administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration, which are off-budget.

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

____________________

OUR MISSION IN IRAQ

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to talk a little bit
about national security and where the Nation's defense apparatus stands
as of now. But I thought I also might comment on the comments that were
made by two of my wonderful colleagues, Ms. Woolsey of California and
Mr. Paul of Texas, who preceded me and commented about their position
to the effect that we should bring our troops home immediately from
Iraq. And implicit in their comments was the message that somehow
Saddam Hussein's continued rule of Iraq would have been preferable to
the American intervention.
I disagree with that theme, and let me tell you why. In listening to
Ms. Woolsey talk about the wounded, the KIA, the suffering in that part
of the world, and the burden that has been borne by American soldiers,
I think it is also important to remember the Iraq that was represented
by Saddam Hussein.
And while she has, obviously, the images that have compelled her to
take her philosophical position, the image that I have, and I keep in
my desk drawer, is the photograph of the hundreds of mothers whose
bodies are strewn across the hillside in northern Iraq, holding their
children, some of them newborn babies, some of them four, five, 6 years
old, dead in mid-stride where they were hit by poison chemical, poison
chemical that was delivered into those villages at the order of Saddam
Hussein.
And I have taken, as a guy who sometimes watches the History Channel,
to tuning in when I see the History Channel reviewing the exhuming of
bodies in these mass graves and putting together this story, this
mosaic of Iraq history under Saddam Hussein and the story of how
hundreds of people, men, women and children, would be herded

[[Page 311]]

across fields and they would be executed and their bodies would be
pushed into mass graves. And now we are uncovering those mass graves.
And just like the mass graves that we found in Europe, especially
those that were filled by bodies that had been people who had been
executed by the Nazis, there are more people now in those mass graves,
we find, than what we had projected.
And as I watched the exhuming of some of those bodies on the History
Channel, I noticed that the anthropologist who was doing the particular
work noted that the mother, in some cases, who was executed would often
have a .45 bullet hole in the back of her head, and her small baby that
she was holding would also have a bullet hole in the back of his or her
head. So the monstrosity that was Saddam Hussein, the mass execution,
the killing of people with chemical weapons, is what the American
troops displaced when we moved into Iraq.
Now, it is tough to stand up a free nation and stand up a military
that is able to protect it, but that is the challenge that we are
meeting right now. And we are following the same basic pattern that we
have followed for 60 years. Whether you are talking about Japan or the
Philippines or El Salvador in our own hemisphere, first you stand up a
free government. Secondly, you stand up a military that is capable of
protecting that free government, and third, the Americans, not coveting
anything that that country has, the Americans leave.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought I also might speak just a little bit, as
we turn over the control of Congress to the Democrat leadership, not
only in the full House, but also the committee chairmanships, and my
own committee chairmanship now has been relinquished to the gentleman
from Missouri, Ike Skelton, my good friend and a wonderful person and a
person with a real heart for the troops. I thought that I might just
comment about where we stand right now. I think it is important for the
American people to know where we stand and what this Congress that is
going out has accomplished for national security.
First, what have we done for the troops? Well, over the last 8 years
we have increased the pay for the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the
Marines, and the National Guard by right at 40 percent, a 40 percent
pay increase. We have increased family separation pay, the amount of
money that we deliver to our military families when they are separated
when people are deployed overseas. We have increased that from $100 a
month to about $250 a month. We have increased our combat pay.
Mr. Speaker, I know I have only got 5 minutes, so I will elaborate on
some of the accomplishments that occurred during this last Congress in
the next hour.

____________________

DEFINING EARMARKS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, again, thank you for the
leadership given today and yesterday by Speaker Pelosi and the House
leadership for putting us on the right course. And it is interesting to
listen to my good friends, and they are good friends, who are on the
other side of the aisle and to listen to the conversation on the
Nation's headline stations about the commitment Democrats have made to
come to work. And we are delighted that in the last couple of votes we
saw almost unanimous votes as relates to our open government.
But let me, as a Member who comes from a district that depends a lot
on the interests and concern of this Congress about issues of
empowerment of nonprofits and charitable organizations who struggle
every day to mentor children, to provide economic empowerment.
Sometimes they provide assistance where government cannot. And they are
the recipients of earmarks. And I think it is important that we define
earmarks so that the maligning that has occurred because of some
inappropriate use of earmarks really doesn't hide the value of allowing
these tax dollars to go back, not through government bureaucracy but
right to the people.

{time} 1430

An example of that is the Texas Southern University Laboratory
School, a school that is placed in a public housing complex that
educates the children and other surrounding children in that
neighborhood in a progressive and op-educational system, so much so
that their test scores have excelled beyond public school. It is, in
fact, formerly a school that had been embraced by the public school
system, and now has been spun off to Texas Southern University, a
teaching college, and the housing authority.
We have an earmark, of which I am very proud to have all of the
scrutiny that anyone might want, that would provide dollars to continue
this interesting and provocative way of teaching our children so that
inner city children, children that would be pegged as not being able to
be creative, are actually passing their science tests, their math
tests, and they rush to school because they have a lust for learning.
That is an earmark.
What I believe in this bill has been passed on reform is
transparency. And any day of the week, I would be willing to associate
my name to track where these monies go and determine whether there are
any special interests that come back to me. You will find a complete
slate in this particular earmark. And all other earmarks as this bill
will allow, we will be able to say this is what this earmark is for. It
is not a special interest, it does not go back to give any individual
Member any kind of advantage.
These earmarks are crucial, such as earmarks for the Northeast YMCA,
that deals again in the far reaches of the 18th Congressional District
but helps youngsters develop leadership skills; or the earmarks that go
to public health clinics that will help create a greater opportunity
for first-line health care for the elderly and working Americans in the
working class.
Again, this should be a Congress not wracked with special interests
but a Congress who really believes in the people who went out to vote
in this last election. So I am proud to be associated with this
lobbying reform that has as one of its key elements the right for the
American people to know where their tax dollars are going. And any day
that any one of us is fortunate enough to receive an earmark, you
should have the ability to be able to review it.
Let me also say as we move forward into the 100 hours of legislation
how proud I am to be part of the overall package. And let me say to
those of you throughout the community who have had those kinds of
questions, like one of the questions that I have been asked, when are
we going to raise the minimum wage, let me respond to the small
businesses who might say this is going to be an extraordinary burden. I
would remind you that when we raised it in 1997, you survived.
It has been 10 years since we raised the minimum wage. Those
individuals who receive an increase in the minimum wage are the
consumers of America. They will be in your small stores in your
neighborhoods. They will be in your small businesses. They will provide
the backbone of your increased economic benefit. So we should not look
to the increase in the minimum wage as undermining small businesses. It
will not. It will create such an infusion of dollars and provide
additional dollars of saving, even though it is a measured increase
that it increases over a period of time.
What a difference it will make for those individuals supporting
families, single parents, double parents, working families still on the
minimum wage. What a difference it will make for them to have an
opportunity to grab hold or to aspire some day in their life to the
American Dream. We cannot continue to be this great country without
having this opportunity.
As I close, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say the minimum wage is vital;
as are the 9/11 Commission recommendations, finally to be able to
secure America; and, lastly, I look forward to bringing to the floor
what America has sent us here to do, which is to find a dignified way
of bringing our soldiers

[[Page 312]]

home with dignity and respect, with a thank you for what they have done
on the front lines of Iraq. That is the challenge for America. That is
the challenge for those of us who have come in the majority this time.

____________________

EARLY ACTIONS OF NEW DEMOCRAT MAJORITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a nice occasion at the end of the
week to wrap up what we have been doing and talk about how we have been
active this week, but before I start, I would like to yield to the
distinguished former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my
colleague from California (Mr. Hunter), to discuss points that he
illuminated in his first 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. McHenry, and again, I thought
it was important, as we move into this new era and my great friend Ike
Skelton takes over the Armed Services Committee to reflect on where we
stand and what we did in the last Congress.
Again, just to reiterate, we culminated a 40 percent pay increase for
the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the United States Marine Corps, and
the National Guard in this last 8 years. Along with that, we increased
family separation pay, which is the pay a family receives when the
loved one is separated, maybe is in theatre, or maybe is deployed far
around the world in this global war against terror. We increased that
from $150 to $250 per month. We increased combat pay. We increased a
number of our insurances. And also, Mr. Speaker, we increased TRICARE
coverage for National Guard personnel and for their families.
Along with that, we did something that was really the special project
of the outgoing readiness chairman, Mr. Hefley of Colorado, which was
to bring in to full flower this privatization of housing on military
bases across the country so that military wives and family members
could move into really great housing.
I have to tell you, in visiting bases across America, it has been
heartwarming to see these military families coming into wonderful new
housing that often has an entertainment area in maybe a common area
with a pool and tennis courts and reading rooms in the center of one of
these housing projects where the families can go for entertainment and
take their children for good quality time.
So the quality of life for America's military families has been
greatly increased over the last 8 years.
Now, what have we done in terms of firepower? Mr. Speaker, I can tell
you that beginning with this administration and meetings that we held
with the Secretary of Defense and with the President, one concern that
I had, and a number of members of our committee had, was the amount of
what I would call precision firepower. That is the ability to deliver a
smart bomb or a precise system. Instead of, for example, having to drop
100 bombs on a bridge to knock a bridge out, to be able to send a smart
bomb in, hit one strut on that bridge, and bring the bridge down.
We all know now that this is the age of precision firepower, and we
wanted to greatly expand our precision firepower because that gives the
United States the capability to project enormous power around the world
when we have to. So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to report to the people
of the House, to our great colleagues and to the American people that
we have in the last 8 years more than doubled, more than doubled our
precision firepower.
A lot of that is manifested in what we call LGBs, or laser-guided
bombs. A lot is manifested in what we call JDAMs, or joint direct
attack munitions. But for our adversaries, that means that America has
the power now to send in more than twice the firepower in precise
places, at precise targets with enormous effect. That is very important
for America's troops and for America's strength.
Now, Mr. Speaker, also people have asked what have we done in terms
of enlarging the size of the two ground elements of America's military,
the primary ground elements, the United States Army and the United
States Marine Corps? We have increased the size of the Marine Corps now
from 175,000 personnel to 180,000 personnel. We have increased it right
at, in fact, exactly 5,000 Marines. And the last time I checked, we
were something like 100 Marines under that limit. But we have gone from
175,000 Marines to 180,000 Marines. We are right at that exact number,
a few people short, but we have those Marines actually on the ground,
deployed, showing up for roll call each day in their particular
position in the war against terror. So we have increased the size of
the United States Marine Corps. Now, we may need further increases, but
at least at this point we have a 5,000 troop increase.
With respect to the Army, we took the Army end strength from 482,000
to 512,000. That is a 30,000 person increase in the United States Army.
Now, a number of us on the Armed Services Committee have done an
analysis parallel to the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and we
feel we may have to increase the Marine Corps and the Army further, and
you can see those recommendations manifested in that report. But we
have actually increased the Army and we have increased the size of the
U.S. Marine Corps.
Now, if you ask, and a number of people have asked since Ronald
Reagan made that speech in 1983 and said, in essence, we are entering
the age of missiles, and the United States, to secure its people, has
to have the ability to shoot down incoming missiles, a number of people
have asked us and asked regularly where are we in terms of missile
defense. And I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that for the first
time in the history of the United States, we actually have a very
small, very limited, but nonetheless very real missile defense for the
first time. It is manifested in the interceptor missiles that we have
in place on the Pacific coast and Alaska that could handle, on a very
limited basis, a rogue missile or several coming into the United
States.
Now, some people may say, well, that is not much. And my answer is,
that is more than we have ever had in the history of this country. We
have deployed a missile defense and we will be building on that
deployment.
So, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important to lay out some of
the things that this Congress has done and that this Armed Services
Committee has accomplished for the American people. A 40 percent pay
increase for our troops, increasing the size of the U.S. Army and the
U.S. Marine Corps, putting together the first missile defense in the
history of the country, and more than doubling the precision firepower
of our armed forces.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the President will be making a statement very
soon about this adjusted policy on Iraq, and I just wanted to once
again tell my colleagues the recommendation that I have made. I know a
lot of us have made recommendations to the President and to the
Secretary of Defense.
Right now, there are 18 provinces in Iraq. And in half of those
provinces, nine of those provinces, there are virtually no attacks
taking place. They average less than one attack a day. In those quiet
peaceful provinces, there are 27 battalions of Iraqi soldiers located
and stationed. Twenty-seven battalions is a lot of soldiers, Mr.
Speaker. It is a lot of firepower. It is a lot of personnel.
My recommendation to the President and to the Secretary of Defense
for the last several months, and I hope that this has been a part of
their conversation, I have urged them, and a number of other of my
colleagues have joined with me in urging them to take the 27 Iraqi
battalions that we have trained and equipped and move them into the
battle. Now, that means that the Ministry of Defense is going to have
to give orders to those battalion commanders and those brigade
commanders in the quiet peaceful sections of Iraq and tell them to
saddle up their forces, get them on the trucks, and move them to
Baghdad.
They need to do that. That should be nonnegotiable. It should be a
requirement by the American war fighting

[[Page 313]]

commanders that cannot be delayed, cannot be finessed, and cannot be
put aside. That is something that should be nonnegotiable, especially
against the backdrop of the enormous American effort that has given
birth to this new government in Iraq.
So I know the President is going to come out with his suggested
policy soon, but I thought it was important to lay out this fact, that
right now we have 27 Iraqi battalions in quiet areas which can be
utilized in the fight, can be put into the fight. In my estimation,
their value in an urban setting, especially one like Baghdad, where
speaking the language is important, and where knowing the communities
is important, their placement in those positions before we move any
additional American troops into those urban situations is, I think,
something that we should do, and that we should require of the Ministry
of Defense of Iraq.

{time} 1445

I want to thank Mr. McHenry for letting me come out and talk a little
bit about these issues and take some of his valuable time. I certainly
appreciate the gentleman's allowing me to come out and say a word or
two.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly appreciate my good
friend from California, your friendship in my brief service in the
House. It has been wonderful learning from you, and I appreciate your
willingness to show national leadership and national involvement as
well, far beyond these House walls. Thank you so much for your
leadership and friendship.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank you. I also want to thank the gentleman for his
great service on our committee. He did a wonderful job.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting moment in our Nation's
history, an interesting moment indeed, with a new Democrat majority
coming to these hallowed halls of Congress. The American people spoke
in November and they wanted a change.
As someone who was formerly in the majority party, now in the
minority party, I respect the power of democracy to change our Nation
and change the direction of our Nation in important policy areas. I
think some of that is going to be beneficial to our economy, and other
proposals that the new Democrat majority are putting forward are going
to be hurtful to our economy and to our national defense and our family
security. But I think it is important that we talk today about some of
the early actions of this new Democrat majority.
During the campaign season over the last few years, the last 2 years,
the Democrats campaigned on openness and accountability. They
campaigned on many things.
In the opening days of Congress, we have seen a far different reality
than what they campaigned on over the last 2 years. It is disheartening
to me as an American citizen and someone who is hopeful and optimistic
about this new Congress, hopeful that we can work on a bipartisan
basis, and I think it is important that we talk about these opening day
actions and the actions they have taken over the last 2 days of this
new Democrat majority.
The first action and the first course of business of this new
Congress was to pass a very closed-off process for consideration of the
so-called 100-hour agenda of the Democrat party put forward by the new
speaker, Ms. Pelosi of California.
What we see in this closed-off package is far different than when
they campaigned on. They campaigned on an open process, open and fair
debate, a dialogue across the aisle, so that we could work in a
bipartisan way for the American people. The first action they took was
to lock out all dissenting voices, even within their own party, but
also among the Republicans represented here today. The Republicans
represent 140 million Americans here in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Their first action after campaigning on openness and
bipartisanship was to close out dissenting voices, to close out the
amendment process.
I was surprised by this, because looking at then-Minority Leader
Pelosi's words, I believed that Minority Leader Pelosi would be a very
open Speaker Pelosi. What we see with her words and actions, and I have
a visual aid here to that effect, now, Speaker Pelosi, then Minority
Leader Pelosi, said a few things about the minority having rights here
in this institution.
Then-Minority leader Pelosi said in 2004, her Minority Bill of Rights
includes fair principles. ``There is a very excellent chance that the
Republicans will be in the minority next year, and what I am saying is
this is the way the House should be conducted, in a bipartisan way, and
whether he,'' meaning Speaker Hastert at the time, ``agrees to it or
not, this is the course of action that I will take.''
What is striking to me is the date on that is June 2004. We are in
the second day of a Democrat majority and we have, instead of a
Minority Leader Pelosi, a Speaker Pelosi. What is striking here is
``that is the course of action that I will take.'' Those are the
Speaker's words.
To that end, I took the very letter that Minority Leader Pelosi wrote
at the time and we filed that legislation and we offered it here on the
House floor yesterday, and it was flatly rejected. Every Democrat to
the person voted against it.
It is striking to me that in their first day as a majority, as a
Democrat majority, they are already going back on the words that they
campaigned on, they campaigned on in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
What did they say in 2005? Then minority leader Pelosi said, ``Mr.
Speaker, I implore you to end the repeated abuses of the rules by the
Republican majority to ram legislation through in such a secretive and
unfair manner.'' That is 2005.
What we see today and yesterday by this new Democrat majority is that
they have a secretive process, because it says that we cannot offer any
amendments on the legislation that we will soon be able to see. We
can't even see the legislation in their 100 hours. They have not let us
or the American people or even many in their own party see the
legislation which we will be voting upon and for which we gave initial
approval to today. That is very striking to me, especially after the
language and rhetoric used in 2004 and 2005 by Speaker Pelosi.
``Additionally, in 2006, so 3 years running, more than 2 years ago, I
first sent Speaker Dennis Hastert Democrat proposals to restore
civility to the Congress. I reiterate my support for those proposals
today. We must restore bipartisanship to the administration of the
House, reestablish regular order for consideration of legislation and
ensure the rights of the minority, whichever party is in the minority.
The voice of every American has to be heard.''
Now, 2004, 2005, 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi talked about openness
and bipartisanship. Speaker Pelosi, the first act of office, goes
completely back on these very words. This rhetoric did not become
reality on the first opening hours of the Democrat majority. I am
hopeful, as all Americans should be, hopeful that there is openness
tomorrow. As Americans, we are an optimistic people.
I think it would be amazing, in fact, I think we would all be amazed,
if their second act was for openness when their first act, their first
principle, was closing off debate and closing off any input from rank
and file Members of this body and the people that we represent at home.
What I would say is that beyond just the words, we need to look at
the values and the principles of this majority. We offered this
minority bill of rights that then minority leader Pelosi proposed, and
it simply says that legislation should be considered in the committee
process and we should have full open debate and discourse.
In essence, we outlined what all fifth graders in this great country
are taught about the legislative process here in the House of
Representatives, that a bill is filed, it is sent to committee, it is
amended and debated and compromised there, it goes to the floor and
goes through that same process, when in fact that is not always the
course of operation of this House.
So the problem is that it is not simply about the process. The issue
today is that the process corrupts the policy.

[[Page 314]]

When you stack the deck on the outcome, you corrupt the policy of this
House Chamber and the laws of this land. So process and policy are
intertwined. When one is corrupted, so is the other. With the Democrats
shutting down debate at a critical moment in our Nation's history, we
have to question their judgment.
There are a number of proper proposals they are putting forward in
the initial 100 hours of debate here in the House of Representatives.
One thing that is very important to Americans and our national security
is the 9/11 Commission recommendations outlined in the fall and over
the last few years. We have heard them very well.
The Democrats campaigned that they wanted to and would, if they were
given the majority, fully implement the 9/11 recommendations. No matter
whether or not they were good public policy or not, they are going to
implement all of them.
Well, as it turns out, the Washington Post reported on November 30,
2006, that ``With control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders
have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would
affect them most directly, a wholesale reorganize of Congress to
improve oversight and funding of the Nation's intelligence agencies.''
It is striking that just days after the election, they are already
going back on their proposal to implement the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations. Now they are saying that they will implement some but
not all. It is kind of surprising, because the American people heard in
an almost unanimous voice from Democrats that they were going to
implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I didn't hear
candidates out there and Members of Congress on the Democrat side
saying some, but not all. No, they said all 9/11 Commission
recommendations.
Only through press reports do we know what this legislation says.
They have not given this out, other than their allies on K Street and
the lobbying community. But they haven't given this out for the
American people and for the press and for all Members of Congress to
see. So we have some concerns about this, because there are many of us
who want to offer perfecting amendments, to make sure this policy is
right and secures our Nation in a proper way.
Thomas Kean, who is a former distinguished Member and Governor of New
Jersey, was a cochair of the 9/11 Commission. He called these important
overhauls in the congressional process of oversight and intelligence
vital.
What we have to do is make sure that the Democrats uphold their
promise. We don't want broken promises. We don't want them to campaign
on good ideas and be corrupted by an ugly process here that results in
bad policy. National security is, of course, of key and utmost
importance, and I am glad they are at least bringing that up in the
first 100 hours.
Additionally, many of us in this Nation are concerned about research
and ensuring that we have medical cures that comfort, that our
government policy upholds not just ethical and moral research, but
lifesaving research.
Next Thursday, from press reports, the Democrats will vote to enact
legislation to expand Federal taxpayer funding for research that
destroys human life and human embryos, and they call this stem cell
research.
Well, while I don't support the destruction of human life, I do
support stem cell research, adult stem cell research that has led to
cures. Unfortunately, due to the process that they have here in this
new Democrat majority, we are not going to be able to offer amendments
to ensure that life is not destroyed and that human embryos are not
destroyed in this process of research.
But if you look at embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem
cell research, there have been wonderful cures coming out of adult stem
cell research, but no cures coming out of embryonic stem cell research.
And we are not even questioning whether or not embryonic stem cell
research should come about. It is a question of whether our taxpayer
dollars should be used to destroy human life, or what many Americans
believe to be a destruction of human life.
Even if not all of us agree on whether or not life should be
protected at its most basic and precious moment, we should all agree
that we shouldn't have unethical processes and research funded by our
Federal taxpayer dollars. In fact, the National Institutes of Health
spends roughly $600 million per year on stem cell research already,
including $40 million for research involving certain types of embryonic
stem cell research. But the type of research they conduct does not
destroy human life.

{time} 1500

Additionally, nearly 100 million of it is for nonhuman embryonic stem
cell research. So this is already being done, yet it is a nice
rhetorical device, just like the Democrats campaigning on implementing
all the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations and just like openness
and fairness. American people like the sound of that. But what is
concerning, whether it is embryonic stem cell research, the 9/11
Commission, or openness and fairness, is that it was only rhetoric. The
Democrats didn't want to implement it and make it reality here in
policy and in law for our Nation.
Beyond that, we have another provision that we voted on today, and
this is Pelosi's PAYGO legislation. Now, PAYGO is a shorthanded word
for pay-as-you-go. It is a nice way that we talk about it here on
Capitol Hill. We call it PAYGO. Now, it sounds very good. The American
people want us to pay for government policies as we enact them, and so
that is a great rhetorical device as well. Pay-as-you-go. Well, what is
devilish about this proposal is that it will lead to a backdoor tax
increase down the line.
As the Wall Street Journal editorial said today: under Pelosi's PAYGO
plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be
offset by either cutbacks and other entitlement programs or tax
increases. This version of Pelosi's PAYGO is a budget trapdoor designed
to control expenditures but to make it easier, easier, to raise taxes
while blocking future tax cuts.
That is from today's Wall Street Journal.
Now, the fundamental budget problem is not spending too little and
taxing too little; it is the fact that right now in our country Federal
revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past 2 fiscal years, and that
is as a direct result of the economic support and economic growth of
the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. As the economy grows and more people
are employed, fewer people use government services. As fewer people use
government services and are making money on their own, they actually
begin to pay taxes. When people are paying taxes, revenue to government
goes up. It is a basic process. And through this robust economic growth
that has come out of these tax cuts, we have had more revenue come into
government.
So pay-as-you-go is a way for the Democrats to establish later the
reasoning to go to the American people and say we need to raise your
taxes. Now, I think it is a faulty and flawed policy, because the tax
cuts of 2001 and 2003 have not limited income to government; in fact,
what the American people must know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government
revenue to the United States Government is the highest it has ever been
in the history of our country. The highest revenue of any time in our
country's history. Beyond that, actually to say it more broadly, we
have more government revenue coming into the U.S. Treasury, your tax
dollars coming into the U.S. Treasury. Even after tax cuts, we have the
most government revenue in the history of man and the history of the
Earth. No government has ever received as much in tax dollars as ours
does today; yet, still, the Democrats put a proposal on the floor today
that will let them raise taxes later.
It is so shocking and so surprising that they would do this in their
opening week in Congress. Now, I knew there were tax-and-spenders on
the other side of the aisle, and that is a liberal focus, to grow the
size of government, increase the revenue to government; but I didn't
realize they would

[[Page 315]]

do this at the very beginning of their new majority in Congress. I
think the American people should be shocked by that.
But what this pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, proposal ignores is that all
the appropriations we have made in the past, the current government
programs that we have will not be under this rule. So we won't analyze
the entitlement programs to see where they need to be reformed; we
won't analyze existing government programs to see that they are getting
the proper result or they are being efficient with their dollars. It
will only apply to new spending.
So let's look at the 100-hour plan and total up the tax value of it
and the spending value of it. And what you see as a result of this plan
is pretty simple: $800 billion of new spending in this 100-hour plan.
Now, think about that. I think the American people should stop for a
second, Mr. Speaker, and think about the fact that in 100 short
legislative hours, over just a few days, the new Democrat majority will
spend $800 billion. That is shocking.
Now, I know that there are these free-spending ways in Washington,
and as a conservative I am opposed to that, especially as someone who
considers themselves a fiscal hawk. But to spend that much money in
such a short period of time has got to strike the American people as
egregious, especially when you campaigned as the Democrats tried to in
the last election as fiscal conservatives and a party that wants to
balance the budget. Yet, they are offering $800 billion worth of new
spending in their first acts of office.
So how do they get that money to pay as they go? They are going to
come to our tax dollars, our personal tax dollars. They are going to
ask more from every American. That means that when you get your
paycheck, whether you work in my district in Hickory, North Carolina,
or Mooresville or in Cherryville, where I am from, you are going to pay
more out of that paycheck to fund the programs that the Democrats who
are in control of this place want to implement. So the average working
man and woman in this country will pay more under Democrat leadership
than they will under Republican leadership.
Beyond that, this 100-hour proposal completely, completely ignores
some of the most pressing issues in our country, certainly ensuring
that our troops in the field are funded fully. Now, that is very
important. Completely ignored in the 100-hour plan in the Democrat
agenda for this Congress. What about entitlement reform? Because, after
all, that is the largest section of the budget of our Federal budget,
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Very important programs. But we
need to make sure that they are fiscally efficient, that they are
fiscally sound, and it is clear that they are not either efficient nor
sound.
So we need to look at entitlement programs, yet the Democrat majority
has completely ignored entitlement reform in their agenda. They have
completely ignored making Social Security solvent for future
generations. And as someone who is eligible for retirement the same
year that Social Security goes finally broke, I am concerned about
that, and my generation of Americans should be concerned about that as
well as all generations of Americans.
What else is missing? Well, obviously the cost of litigation on small
businesses across this country, completely ignored that, certainly
because the trial lawyers I think have helped write the Democrat agenda
for this Congress and there is a big difference between what trial
lawyers seek and what the average small businessman or the average
family doctor in this country seeks. And so they have completely
ignored reforming and limiting litigation and the cost of litigation on
the American society. Completely ignored that.
They have also ignored helping small businesses with health care
either through health savings accounts where individuals can save tax
free, something that we as Republicans have worked very hard, and free-
market conservatives like the idea of people being able to save tax
free without Uncle Sam reaching into your savings and pocketing that
money; or association health plans where small businesses can come
together, link up, and increase their affordability and their buying
capacity to give their employees health care. Completely ignored with
the Democrats' agenda.
In fact, the Democrats came on the floor, some of these that
campaigned on the other side of the aisle as helping small businesses,
one of their first votes was to vote against letting small businesses
pool their resources to buy health care. That hurts. That hurts in the
opening days of Congress.
Beyond that, they have ignored border security. I think the American
people have demanded border security and a sane immigration policy for
this country. There are many leaders on my side of the aisle on the
issue of border security, and I think we need to engage in that
discussion on how we reform our immigration policy in this United
States and how we plan to do that. I think most Americans agree that we
must begin with the border, to ensure that we have an immigration
policy that is enforceable, realistic, and real for this country.
So though we are just in a few opening hours of this new Congress,
some things are clear. Some things are very clear. The rhetoric that
the Democrats campaigned on was good. It was good. The American people
supported it. The American people put new Democrats in office,
Democrats that campaigned some as fiscal conservatives, others as
social conservatives, most certainly as moderates in this last
election. But their opening hours, their opening hours go back on those
pledges for fiscal sanity due to the high cost of their opening plan
and proposals, $800 billion worth of spending in just 100 hours.
It goes back on this openness concept. It goes back on fiscal sanity
by covering up with this Pelosi PAYGO plan that will raise our taxes
later in the year or later next year, certainly tax increases in the
future, though. It fully ignores their proposal to fully implement the
9/11 Commission proposals by kind of sort of doing a few of them that
they think are politically palatable rather than following through on
their promise. It uses a great rhetorical device of stem cell research.
But when they come here and they vote, they ignore the cloning issue,
whether or not we are funding human cloning, whether or not we are
destroying human life.
So the rhetoric in the campaign is very much removed from their
actions in this new Congress.
They also ignore their pledge to work with all sides on issues of
importance to the American people, to work in a bipartisan way. They
even go back on their pledge and demand for minority rights here in
this institution. So we see hypocrisy from the Democrat majority. Many
would say it is ironic that you campaign as a conservative, yet come in
and govern as a liberal, which we are already seeing in just two days
of Democrat control.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are an optimistic and
hopeful people. We have a new week, we have a new day coming where the
Democrats can change, and I am hopeful that they will, that they will
go back to what they campaigned on that the American people endorsed in
the last election for bipartisanship, for openness, for national
security and the defense of our country, for good strong family values,
and fiscal sanity. And when that happens, I will be happy to reach
across the aisle and work with my colleagues in the Democrat majority
to ensure that these things happen.
But until that day comes, I will point out the fact that they are
going back on their words to the American people, and I will not
restrain myself from calling it as I see it, and I think as the way the
American people should see it as well, that in order to govern
effectively you have to fulfill your promises, you have to make sure it
is not empty campaign rhetoric, that in fact it is a full
implementation of the agenda that you sought in the election.
I think the American people want change in Washington. I don't think
they got change in the last two days, though. I think what you saw with
this new Democrat majority is this same

[[Page 316]]

type of abuse of power that they had in 1993, in 1992, through the
1980s and the 1970s. The majority may be new today, but the Democrat
chairmen are the same as they were 20 years ago, on the larger part of
the Democrat majority and for the larger part of the committees that
they have organized. And the policy proposals that they offer going
forward after this 100-hour proposal will be much the same as they
offered in the early 1990s and the 1980s and the 1970s.

{time} 1515

Those policy proposals are pretty simple: Raise your taxes, weaken
national defense, and go the opposite way on family values. But I hope
that we can work with moderates on the other side of the aisle,
moderates on the other side of the aisle that are willing to look at
fiscal sanity, willing to stand up for traditional values and willing
to do the right thing for the American people and will work together. I
am very hopeful that we will have that opportunity after this 100-hour
proposal is done. And hopefully, it will be done quickly.

____________________

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE PASSING SCENE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, Mr. McHenry's input into this dialogue
that we have here is essential. I look forward to the pugnacious Mr.
McHenry's deliveries on this floor and in committee and before the
media over the next 2 years of the new 110th Congress.
As always, Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor and privilege to
address you on the floor in the United States House of Representatives,
the people's House. As I bring up this subject matter that is here
before us, I have a series of things, random thoughts on the passing
scene, focused on current events will be my message here today.
There are mistakes that are made and there are things said and done
in political campaigns that don't always reflect the wishes or the
policy, but things are said sometimes to win elections and then you
have to follow through on that.
We have had some standards to look back on. The first 100 days of the
presidency, many Presidents have made their pledge that in the first
100 days they are going to move pieces of policy, and they have
endeavored to keep those pledges.
When the Republicans took over the majority in 1994, they also made a
pledge in the first 100 days that they would bring, at least bring to a
vote a series of reform changes called ``Contract With America.''
Looking back on that, and it depends on your analysis and definition,
but something like two-thirds of that agenda was passed into law. I
believe all of it was voted on in this Congress. But yet it was done
under a regular order. It was done under an open process, and it was
done by bringing the legislation of the Contract With America, which I
am comparing now to this first 100 hours of the new majority's agenda,
comparing those two initiatives that were brought up in the campaign
and the pledges that were made. But they were brought through in
regular order in the Contract With America in 1994.
Regular order meaning that the bills were introduced and they were
brought to subcommittee where they had a full subcommittee hearing and
there was open debate and there was an opportunity for Democrats and
Republicans to offer their amendments into the subcommittee on each of
those pieces of legislation. As it came out of subcommittee, it went to
full committee where there was an opportunity for the full committee
members to weigh in. As we know, the committees are where we have
established and developed expertise. If you look at the chairs and also
the seasoned veterans on committees, both Republicans and Democrats,
and I look at the Judiciary Committee where there is a tremendous
amount of seniority, and I have the honor to serve on the House
Judiciary Committee, there is a replete, not necessarily complete but a
very replete body of knowledge within the minds of the members of the
committee and the staff. And of course the history and the resources
that are there.
That is why we put legislation through the subcommittee and committee
processes so we can weigh in with our judgment and bring our individual
expertise to bear, and we have an opportunity to hear from our
constituents because they will read the language and they will parse
the words and let us know where the flaws are.
Mr. Speaker, my first step into public life was going from the
private sector, being a construction company founder, owner and manager
into the legislative arena as an Iowa senator. And the first thing I
learned was the law of unintended consequences.
In other words, you can have a good idea and it sounds perfect to you
from your limited perspective. You can put that down into the form of a
law, and if I were king for a day as a younger man, I might have
offered some of those ideas I had earlier in my political career as an
edict that I believed should have been the law of the land and lay that
out there and give a bob of my scepter and declare that to be law. But
my mistakes would have been as a younger, less experienced man, and
sometimes still today those mistakes, I didn't understand the law of
unintended consequences. I didn't understand that my ideas needed to be
vetted across the spectrum of the other people that I served in the
State legislature with, and I carry that experience with me into this
Congress. I didn't understanding that I needed to float those ideas out
to the various constituency groups that are there to be voices of
individuals, and I didn't understand that I needed to float those out
to individuals and get those ideas out in the press and publish my
bills so that people that are interested can look in and weigh in and
make phone calls, send e-mails and write letters, come and visit and
lobby as individuals or join up with their various constituency groups
that are out there to be able to analyze and be a louder voice as
members of a group so that all of the expertise that America has to
offer can come to bear on the judgments and decisions that we make here
in this Congress.
But that whole process that I have described, the process utilized in
1994 with the Contract With America, that entire open, bipartisan
process has been usurped by this rules package that has been brought
here to the floor of this Congress. We learned essentially a new term.
I don't know if anybody in this Congress understood it at the time.
Some did, I imagine, because they came up with the effort on the rules.
I came down here to put up my first vote on a motion to commit. Now I
have voted many times on motions to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, if I may describe that. A motion to recommit is a motion
that says if you bring a bill to the floor and then it gets debated
here on the floor, the motion to recommit says we want to recommit it
back to committee and sometimes recommit it with instructions back to
committee because there are Members here in the full House that didn't
have an opportunity to weigh in on that bill as it came through
committee. They didn't sit on the appropriate committee, for example.
So they had a viewpoint that needed to be considered. And if a motion
to recommit is successful here on the floor, that says a majority of
the Members of the full House of Representatives have concluded that
there are other ideas that needed to be considered, send it back to
committee with instructions so those other ideas can be considered.
That is a motion to recommit.
But we voted on a motion to commit, not recommit, a motion to commit.
A motion to commit is send it to committee. And the reason it is a
motion to commit rather than a motion to recommit is this legislation
has not gone through committee. It has not gone through the
subcommittee process or the committee process. It simply then is
legislation that was held very tight. I don't know if it was in a
locked briefcase, but it was something that the

[[Page 317]]

public and press didn't have access to. Members of Congress didn't have
access to it. In fact, I believe many of the lower ranking Members of
the majority party didn't have access to this legislation. It was
secret legislation that was thrust upon us and the only opportunity
that we have is a nondebatable motion to commit to committee for the
first time because it didn't go through the committee process.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is inconsistent with the pledge that was
made throughout the election process and throughout the campaign
process.
There are a number of quotes that were identified, and I have some of
them. I don't have all of them. One of them by now-Speaker Pelosi was
this, and this was on CNN on November 9, so 2 days after the election.
That would have been Thursday. She said, ``Democrats are ready to lead,
prepared to govern.'' I don't quibble with that part of the statement.
But the completion of the sentence is, ``ready to lead, prepared to
govern, and absolutely willing to work in a bipartisan way.''
Mr. Speaker, there is no definition of bipartisanship that I can
apply to this process unless many of the Members of the majority party
were as shut out of this process as the entire minority party was. I
suspect that is the case. I don't want to parse the language in there,
I just want to say that the spirit and intent of that statement,
``willing to work in a bipartisan way'' has been violated here, but
maybe not the technical definition of that. We can expect these things
because we have a house full of lawyers that are good with language and
they will find a way to convolute this language to be able to defend
themselves.
So I point out this process. Motion to commit, nondebatable motion.
All you can do is plead for a recorded vote, and that is the only
opportunity to voice objection, but there is not an opportunity to
improve the legislation. And that is really what we need to do, always,
all of us in a bipartisan way, at least provide an opportunity for
amendments in the process. That means in the subcommittee process and
in the full committee process, and then here on the floor of the House
of Representatives in open debate so the public can evaluate this
process, not a secret or closed process, but an open process to the
public. We owe you that, America. We owe you an open and clean process
and we owe you an open dialogue and an open debate.
If we don't do that, you will be drawing conclusions such as they
don't believe in what they are doing enough to be able to have an open
debate. What kind of work is being done here that we are not able to
have it withstand the scrutiny and the criticism that might come from
the public if it were an open process.
So I will submit, Mr. Speaker, that promises get made during
campaigns. There were many promises made during the last campaign that
will not be kept by the new majority party. But the promise that seems
to be the one that is sacrosanct is the promise that in the first 100
hours we will do these things. In order to accomplish these promises of
achievement within the first 100 hours, which is comparable to the
first 100 days in presidential promises or the promise of the 1994 new
majority, in order to achieve those goals and keep those promises, the
promise we will do it within the first 100 hours, the only way to meet
that was to take this bipartisanship and set it aside and suspend it at
least temporarily, if not permanently, for the 110th Congress, and to
set aside the subcommittee process and set aside the committee process.
We have one more avenue here that there can be an open forum, and
that is the rules process. At least a member can bring an amendment to
the Rules Committee, explain their amendment in open forum and ask for
a vote on their amendment as to whether that amendment can be allowed
to be considered here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
I was astonished there were this many amendments when I came here as
a freshman a couple of Congresses ago. I was astonished that there were
so many amendments that were turned down, that did not see the light of
day. But there was an opportunity to present them to the Rules
Committee, and I did that many times and I got turned down many times
as a member of the majority party. But we don't even have a rules
process that is open enough that you can present your amendments to the
Rules Committee.
In fact, I believe the Rules Committee, as an example already, will
not be meeting, it will simply be a decision that is made by the
leadership of the majority party, and the recorded votes of the Rules
Committee will be secret. That is part of this package, as I understand
it, too, Mr. Speaker.
So of all of the promises that will be broken, the one that should be
broken is the one that is sacrosanct, the promise of accomplishment in
the first 100 hours. If we could just look at that and say we
understand your motive, but this is not conducive to bipartisanship or
open process; in fact, it is not conducive to good legislation because
the good ideas of Democrats and Republicans are shut out of this
process.
I will just ask this of now-Speaker Pelosi: Why don't you just break
one promise instead of a series that will ultimately be broken, and
break that promise about 100 hours so that you can keep your promise
about bipartisanship, and keep your promises about an open process and
ethical process. That is far more important to the American people than
a promise to accomplish certain legislative endeavors within the first
100 hours.
This 100 hours is meaningless to the American people. All of this has
to go over to the Senate. The Senate has to be willing to take it up.
The Senate has to be able to vote cloture on some of this, and I think
it will be filibustered, and it has to get to the President for
signature. Timing is not as essential, it is the policy that is
important. It is important to have an open process, it is important
that we weigh in and that amendments be allowed to be offered and that
they be considered and that they be voted on so the American people can
have confidence in this process.

{time} 1530

And sometimes, sometimes, this body, this great deliberative body of
the people's House, will reach the right decisions. In fact, I believe
often we will. When we do so with public debate and an open process, we
reach the right decision for the right policy for America and we also
reach it by using the right reasons, the reasons of open dialogue that
allow people's positions and their knowledge to come to that debate.
Sometimes we will make the wrong decision, and when we do that, if we
have open dialogue and open debate, then at least it is arguable that
we have arrived at the wrong decision, but at least we followed the
right process, and we can't fault the reasoning on how we get there.
I would compare Gerald R. Ford, and may he rest in peace, Gerald R.
Ford, whom we said good-bye to within this past week, the man who came
to the Presidency after having served 25 years here, Mr. Speaker, in
the House of Representatives, a man who was almost without guile as
President. A President who made decisions at a time when we needed
someone who had absolute integrity. The person who had confidence, the
confidence and the endorsement of Democrats and Republicans at the
time, Mr. Speaker. And with Gerald R. Ford as President, when he made a
decision, when I agreed with him and he laid out his reasoning and his
rationale, when he made the right decision, he made it for the right
reason.
He thoughtfully deliberated on the components of the information, the
interactivity of them and what the result would be and what the
constitutional foundation was on that decision. And he made his
decision, and he told us why. And that established confidence in the
integrity and the judgment, in the intellect, and the character and in
the faith of Gerald R. Ford.
When he made the wrong decision, and I will just say when I disagreed
with him would be my definition of the wrong decision, he still laid
out his argument. And when he laid out his argument, I could not fault
him for using the wrong criteria. It was well thought

[[Page 318]]

out. He made his arguments well. When we disagreed, I would have a
different argument.
But those kinds of debates that he had within himself, he earned that
respect of us for President Ford. That kind of deliberation, that kind
of integrity so far in the 110th Congress is nonexistent because there
hasn't been an opportunity to have that debate on any of this that has
come to this at this point and the rules deny there be that kind of
debate and deliberation in the future.
So I talked about the new motion, still it was in the rules, but a
motion to commit. New to use. You will hear a discussion, Mr. Speaker,
about PAYGO. PAYGO means pay as you go. It means something different to
Democrats than it does to Republicans. And I will say that when
Republicans talk about PAYGO, we mean we want to pay as we go, as do
Democrats, but we believe we should constrain spending and slow the
growth in government and we should find ways for reconciliation and
maybe do a rescissions package so that we can rachet this spending down
to keep it within the revenue stream.
We believe that the Bush tax cuts have absolutely flat out been
proven to stimulate this economy. Revenue is up. Revenue has increased
significantly since the Bush tax cuts were put in place. That is why
our deficit has been reduced. It is because revenue has gone beyond our
expectations. But the PAYGO argument for me is I want to slow this
growth in spending so that we can get the size of our Federal
Government back in line with the size of our revenue stream.
For example, last year there were mistakes made by the majority party
in the last couple, three Congresses. I believe that there was too much
money that was spent, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we should have shut
that down earlier. I was surprised when I came to this Congress as a
freshman in January of 2003 that there wasn't a balanced budget that I
could simply endorse, jump on, and go to work with. It was a condition
where we were dealing with the reality of the politics rather than the
necessity of balancing the budget.
And in order to produce a balanced budget, I would have had to create
my own with my new staff, who didn't really have that time and
understanding of this overall 2.7 or $2.8 trillion national budget. But
things crept away from a balanced budget, and we know why. We know
there was the bursting of the dot-com bubble that took place and it was
necessary, and I could go into that perhaps on another date, Mr.
Speaker.
And we also know that we faced an attack on September 11 that shut
down our financial industry and that the effort was to turn our United
States economy into a tailspin. It needed to be brought out of that
nosedive, and the tax cuts that we passed brought it back up out of
that nosedive. We knew that we had to engage in a global war on terror
and it was going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to be able to
defend Americans that had been killed in greater numbers on our soil
than ever at any time in history, and we set about to do that.
So three big things sent us into a deficit: the bursting of the dot-
com bubble, the attack on September 11, and the necessity to fund the
effort in a global war on terror. Those three things. And as the
stimulants took place on the tax cuts, it has taken a little while to
get them to take hold, but there is no argument that this economy is
the strongest and most powerful economy that I have experienced in my
lifetime, and it is measurable by a lot of different ways. Anything
that goes up and is good for the economy is up. Anything that goes down
that is good for the economy is down, and the opposite is also true.
This has been a powerfully strong economy with growth in something
like 18 of 19 previous quarters, and all of that growth has been up
around the 3 percent level. So this economy has been powerful, and this
growth has been really a great position to be in to be able to say let
us let the economy grow us out of this. Let us slow this growth of
balance. Let us balance this budget.
But let us not balance it, Mr. Speaker, with tax increases. That is
what PAYGO means to Democrats. The tax cuts have provided the growth in
our revenue stream. Tax increases will diminish the growth in our
revenue stream. But their idea of pay-as-you-go is to increase taxes
and increase spending, as we heard Mr. McHenry say, to the tune of $800
million in this package. That $800 million won't be paid for by cuts in
other line items in any significant way. That, in their mind, is paid
for by tax increases.
As has been stipulated by the new incoming chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, Mr. Rangel of New York, none of the Bush tax cuts he
would say he would support or endorse. And as you listened to him
respond across the media airwaves, it always came back to the only way
that you could characterize his position was we are going to increase
taxes.
When you increase taxes, you slow this economy. Ronald Reagan once
said what you tax you get less of. What you tax you get less of, and
what you subsidize you get more of. But I want to talk about the what-
you-tax-you-get-less-of component of that, a very wise statement of
President Reagan's, and that is in our infinite lack of wisdom here in
the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, we tax all productivity in
America.
In fact, the Federal Government has the first lien on all
productivity in America. And you can measure that by personal income
tax, corporate income tax, capital gains, taxes on interest income,
taxes on dividend income, taxes on your pension, taxes on your Social
Security. I am forgetting some of those taxes. How about your savings
and investment? Any way you can describe productivity, the Federal
Government is there to tax it; so we get less productivity because we
tax our productivity in America, and Democrats are poised to increase
the taxes on our productivity. What you tax you get less of.
If you are paying a 10 percent income tax and you are making $50,000
a year and they want to raise that tax up to let's just say 50 percent,
why in the world would you try to increase your revenue stream by 50
percent if your taxes are going to go up by the average of 50 percent
and 10 percent, say, roughly 30 percent on average? That will not
happen in the minds of the American people. That is why organized
economies never work. That is why Marxism has failed. That is why
socialized economies, managed economies, have always failed. Free
enterprise has been the thing that has provided incentives so that
people could produce all they could produce and they had an incentive
to be able to keep the max amount possible and still be able to provide
the services that are necessary to hold our sovereign state together.
Democrats want to raise taxes to balance the budget. Republicans want
to cut spending to balance the budget.
So last year I put together the formula that would get us to a
balanced budget. And if we just wanted to do it all at once, we need to
be looking at what that balanced budget was to do that all at once. And
we say, first of all, there is nondiscretionary spending. This is the
kind of spending that is already in the formula, that is, what it is
going to cost for Social Security, what it is going to cost for
Medicaid, what it is going to cost for Medicare. That is most of them,
those formulas that are automatic transfer payments that are already
set up in the equation. That is nondiscretionary spending. Many people
think you can't affect that. That we shouldn't change it, maybe adjust
the rules in such a way that there would be fewer recipients or fewer
dollars of Medicaid, for example.
That needs to be addressed, and we have tried to address entitlement
spending. That is that nondiscretionary spending and the other phrase
for it: you are entitled to Social Security. You are entitled to
Medicare. You are entitled to Medicaid. But the rules of those
entitlements are in the code today, and those rules are something that
can be changed and adjusted. And I am not here to talk about how to do
that specifically, although I do have some ideas on how to approach
that, but we need to address entitlement spending.

[[Page 319]]

That was the President's effort when he came out right after his
second inaugural address and traveled the countryside and spoke about
reforming Social Security. That operation will collapse at some point
unless we have the political courage to touch that third rail and fix
it. That is an entitlement.
Another one is Medicare. Being from the State that is last in the
Nation in Medicare receipts on a per capita basis, there is much that
must be done to help our people out who are on the short end of that
stick. But entitlement spending is a component of this. They want to
increase taxes rather than adjust entitlement spending. And the more
they can grow entitlement spending, the more they can take us into
socialism. And I don't want to have a managed economy. I want to have a
free enterprise market economy. That is what I came here to promote and
defend.
PAYGO for Democrats is raise taxes; PAYGO for Republicans is cut
spending. And last year for the 2007 fiscal year, which much of that is
still ahead of us, we could have left entitlements in place. We could
have left defense spending in place at the appropriated levels that we
have now and done nondefense discretionary spending. That is the rest
of the budget that I haven't mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, nondefense discretionary spending could have been
appropriated at the term of 95 percent of what it was for the 2006
fiscal year and we would have had a balanced budget.
Some of the Democrats have pledged to support a balanced budget that
does not include increasing taxes, that does include reduction of
spending in nondefense discretionary, that discretionary spending that
doesn't put our Nation at risk. Ninety-five percent of the 2006 fiscal
year, that doesn't mean an increase. That actually means a decrease of
5 percent in funding.
Well, if I have a family budget and all of a sudden I look around and
I think I am going into debt here and I guess I am not going to be in a
position to pass that debt along to my children, and we should not be,
then we need to be willing to live within our means. And whatever your
means are, most of us, if we had to look back and think we can have a
balanced family budget if we would just reduce our overall spending
down to 95 percent of what it was last year, we would willingly make
that adjustment, recognizing that we haven't been as responsible as we
should have been, and made the budget adjustment.
That is the kind of PAYGO we need to do in this Congress. We need a
balanced budget here, yes, Mr. Speaker, but not PAYGO with tax
increases. Pay as you go without tax increases. That is the Steve King
position, and I believe that will be a core position on the part of
many of the Republicans.

{time} 1545

Another way that we can adjust, address spending, is the earmark
reform. I have been in strong support of earmark reform. I have stepped
in and voted for 16 of the 17 that Congressman Flake brought to the
floor of this Congress in the 109th Congress, but I don't think that
really does the job. They are pieces that I agree with.
But I want to do some real reform here, Mr. Speaker, and I am
prepared to introduce a bill. It is a bill that I introduced last year.
The problem is this, we talk about giving the President a line item
veto, so that when there is spending that comes out, and maybe you want
to talk about the Bridge to Nowhere, that is one of those issues that
has been raised up as a earmark. Well, if the Bridge to Nowhere comes
up, or the Cowgirl Hall of Fame comes up or some of these other
earmarks that have been rather notorious in the media, we would ask the
President, under a presidential line item veto to veto that, take it
out of the budget, save that $273 million or whatever the number might
be for any of those items, or $1 million line item veto to maybe study
the nocturnal habits of the salamander, or whatever it might be. You
know some of those, Mr. Speaker, they have been out in the news.
These are earmarks that get slipped in, generally at the committee
level, as the bill is being drafted. It comes out here. No Member of
Congress has an opportunity to evaluate those earmarks, nor an
opportunity to bring an amendment that could strike those earmarks from
the bill. They arrive in a compromised fashion often as a conference
committee report that comes back in the negotiations between the House
and the Senate.
It comes to the floor. We have got to vote on it to move to keep the
government operating, and what happens is, there are line items in
there that have been earmarked by people who are inside that conference
committee, and these Members of Congress here, Democrats and
Republicans, are held accountable for voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on pork
projects that they didn't know was in the bill.
I would illustrate it this way, when I first came to this Congress,
there was a 3,600 page omnibus spending bill. I was only here about 3
days, or maybe even two, and that bill came to the floor of this
Congress, and 20 minutes after it was made available to my staff to
evaluate, the final vote went up here on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
That process meant that I was accountable for all of those earmarks
that were in that omnibus spending bill, those 3,600 pages. It is one
thing to try to evaluate a bill and read what's in it, it is not
possible within the time we had, but it is at least possible to
evaluate something that is in the bill.
Try and find, Mr. Speaker, something that is not in the bill. Try and
look through 3,600 pages to determine that there are omissions as well
as the issues, the earmarks that are in the bill.
This process does need to be more open, so I have drafted the CUT
Act, and it is cut unnecessary tab, and the tab references, if you have
a tab in an eating or drinking establishment, we want to cut this tab.
I believe this, that Members of Congress need to have a legitimate
opportunity to have their own line item veto. I think every Member of
this Congress should be able to offer an amendment to a bill that
strikes out the line items of their choice under an open rule.
So the CUT Act does this, Mr. Speaker, it allows once a quarter, four
times a year, for a bill to come to the floor under an open rule, and
it may just be a shell bill, it may not have a single line item strike
in it, but it allows under an open rule any and every Member to bring
forth their list of objectionable spending, objectionable earmarks, and
have them offer those earmark strikes.
All it would do is be a rescissions bill that reduces spending, and
the reduction in that spending goes to address the deficit. When the
deficit is addressed, then it goes back into the general fund, which
ultimately reduces our national debt, gives every Member of this
Congress an opportunity to have a line item veto of their own offered
to all Members of Congress.
So let us say there is a crazy appropriation out here that got
slipped into a bill. It will surely happen, Mr. Speaker, it will happen
hundreds and perhaps thousands of times. Let us just say that the
blogosphere out there is lit up, that people go to their Web pages, and
they scrutinize the work that we do. We need to give them a lot of
access to do that because they are the next watch dogs on this
Congress.
It used to be that the watch dogs sat in this gallery, and many do,
and I am glad they are here, but then as those watch dogs were also up
here in the press corps, and then the press wrote, and it got into the
newspapers, and sometimes, weeks later, had got out into the press in
the corners of the United States of America
Well, now we are real-time. We are real-time, and it has been press
real-time for a long time, but it is even better now because we have an
Internet, we have a blogosphere. Let us just say that there is a
completely objectionable earmark that has been slipped in by a
committee chairman, or maybe an agreement with a ranking member, that
comes out of a conference committee, and it comes down to the floor of
this Congress.
Let us just pick the nocturnal habits of salamanders for $10 million,
to have

[[Page 320]]

a subject here that we can talk about and understand. Well, we don't
really need to understand the nocturnal habits of salamanders, at least
at that kind of experience to the taxpayers. But whatever the
motivation was that put it in there, we will not see it. We will not
have time to read the bill. But that bill then, once it passes a
conference report, goes to the President, and he will sign that bill,
because there are many things in there that we must have to keep the
government operating, and now we have got $10 million wasted on the
nocturnal habits of salamanders.
There is nothing Congress can do about it, we have done it. We have
been complicit, our rules have been complicit in allowing these things
to happen, not just with this earmark, Mr. Speaker, but hundreds and
even thousands of them. My CUT Act allows this, it allows a Member to
stand up on the first day of the quarter, hopefully it will be the
leader and the leaders, and they will say, I have a bill at the desk
made in order under the rule, and this bill is the CUT Act bill, then
that allows the shell bill to come up like an appropriations bill, only
this is a deappropriations bill, a rescissions bill, that every
amendment that strikes spending by line item is in order, and the
Members can flock over here to the Capitol, and being responsive to
their constituents, being responsive to their constituency groups,
being responsive to the bloggers out there, that have gone down through
this legislation, have read every single line item, have read the
details and the nuances of it, read every details and the nuances of
it; and then, these Members of Congress can come here, offer their
amendments to strike the $10 million that would be spent for the
nocturnal habits of salamanders, and you can add line after item after
line item, strike after strike to that.
When that happens, we will have an open process, a process that will
allow for the people of the United States of America to weigh in on our
appropriations that we are doing here.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a description of how the CUT Act works. A lot
of us would like to see the President with a legitimate and effective
line item veto. But I believe this Congress deserves a legitimate and
an effective line item veto. It is why I put a lot of research into
this, I have examined it, I have floated it out to the various
constituency groups. I have asked them for their input because I don't
want to have unintended consequences. I want to be able to provide a
process here that is good for the future of America, an open process, a
process that gives everybody in this Congress a line item veto, at
least to offer the amendment.
When that bill passes off this floor, and I don't envision just
eliminating $10 million on the nocturnal habits of salamanders, I
envision there to be 25 or 50 or 100 or 300 or more line items that are
accumulated into that bill that are struck. Because individually, they
will not be able to withstand the scrutiny of the majority of the
Members of Congress, because you, the people of America, and the
American people, I should say, actually, Mr. Speaker, will insist that
we be fiscally responsible and that we not waste money.
So let us just say that there are now 100 line items strikes, each
one of them representing an amendment to the CUT Act bill that is in
order, and that $10 million to the nocturnal habits of salamanders is
the first one, and that saves the taxpayers $10 million. We go right
down the list of those things that you know about, Mr. Speaker, those
things that are in the media, strike after strike after strike, and we
have now accumulated 100 different strikes, line item vetoes, and out
of those 100, there is in there, perhaps, let us pick a round number,
$1 billion. Now this bill, then, passes off this House of
Representatives, and it goes over to the Senate, where we ask them to
take it up.
We cannot write their rules, Mr. Speaker, but we can ask them to take
up a bill that we pass here, a rescissions package that has the full
support of the American people that cuts $1 billion out of our spending
that reduces our deficit and when, successfully, we are at the balanced
budget level, pays down the national debt.
That is the CUT Act, Mr. Speaker. That is a line item veto for
Members of Congress. That is Congressional accountability. That is the
kinds of things that we need to have an opportunity to debate here on
the floor of this Congress when we kick off this 110th. That is the
kind of amendment that has been shut out of this process, not just out
of the process of subcommittee and committee, but shut out of even
being presented at the Rules Committee so that there can be access to
the media for the debate, the deliberation, and so that there will be
people that can be held accountable for their vote when they decide
they don't want this kind of an open process.
I submit that there is no desire for this open process on the part of
the majority. I believe that I need to continue to beat this drum, and
I will.
To package the PAYGO argument up and move on to the next component of
this, PAYGO, for Republicans is, control and constrain spending to
achieve a balanced you budget, no new taxes, less spending, balanced
budget, fiscally responsible, PAYGO for Democrats is buy what you need
to, spend what you need to pass by your Members, raise taxes, so that
you can say that you balanced the budget.
That will work until you kill the goose that lays the golden egg,
what you tax you will get less of. We will get less tax gas production
in America as taxes increase. That means then that there will be less
revenue coming in, coming off of the production in America, and
eventually this economy will be constrained It will shrink, and we will
have, we will finally kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We will
have to come back around, reduce tax again, stimulate again, do what we
did in the aftermath of September 11 to reduce tax, do it in the Reagan
way, do it in the John F. Kennedy way, the Reagan way, the George W.
Bush way, those things, those tax reductions have always increased and
stimulated our economy. That doesn't seem to be something that is
within the scope of understanding on the other side, because there is a
different agenda. It is a socialization agenda.
So, that is the description of PAYGO, Mr. Speaker. Now, the next
component that I want to talk about within this rules package is the
idea of ethics reform. Ethics reform, I agree, we needed to reform some
ethics. We didn't do enough in the 109th Congress to reform ethics. We
did things that were, I thought, window dressing.
My view on ethics is that, I mentioned the bloggers a little bit
earlier. We need to give the American people sunlight. They have got to
have sunlight on this process. That means that we should not have rules
that are written and reports that are written in such a way that the
information is difficult to access, or difficult to understand, or
impossible to legitimately analyze and draw real black and white
conclusions.
But in truth, that is the system that we have today, and it is the
system that has been improved some over the years, but it has got a
ways to go. The system that I would submit is under a package that I
have offered called the Sunlight bill. That means that I want a light
on the things that we do.
I think that we live in a fishbowl anyway, all 435 of us, we are
scrutinized by the press whenever we show up in public, we are
recognized, and that is great, it is flattering. It is a tremendous
honor to be able to represent the people here in the United States
House of Representatives. The trade-off for that is you don't get a lot
of privacy. The requirement for that is that you report your finances,
for example, and that we report our campaign finances, as well as our
personal finances, and we report our financial dealings. That includes
real estate transactions, purchases.
But we have a system that is not open. We have a system that is not
accessible. We have a system that is not really sortable, and it is
vague enough that you can't draw clear conclusions from that reporting
system that we have. I have offered the Sunlight Act to fix all of that
and to make it more, and I am going to say far more, accessible to the
American people.

[[Page 321]]

First and the easiest one to deal with is the Federal Election
Commission reporting. Now, all of us have to go out and raise money in
order to get elected to this Congress. Money is a necessity for the
people to express their freedom of speech. If we don't raise the money,
eventually someone will spend a lot of money. No matter what our level
of integrity is, you cannot sustain a seat in the House of
Representatives if you are not willing to go out and raise some money
and be able to advertise on a political campaign.
It is unfortunate. I don't know that it was envisioned by our
Founding Fathers, but it is necessary. Mr. Speaker, if we concede the
point that money has to be raised by Members of Congress, and it does,
then we also need to discuss, and I believe, concede the point that we
should have full reporting of our campaign finances, and we do have a
law that requires full reporting, and I don't want to imply that that
doesn't exist, it is just that the reporting isn't necessarily in real-
time.

{time} 1600

It isn't necessarily in a format that is accessible. So if it is not
accessible, easily accessible, then it is not as full as the reporting
should be. The Sunlight Act asks this, that the Federal Election
Commission reporting, our campaign finances, be reported in real-time.
And it sets up some parameters on how much time you have if you receive
some revenue from an individual or from a PAC, the timing of that is a
little looser until you get down to the last 30 days of a campaign. In
the last 30 days the Sunlight Act requires that you file those campaign
contributions every 24 hours, every single day, the last 30 days, you
file those campaign revenues. Somebody hands you a check, that gets
deposited, but it gets reported the same business day. That is not too
much to ask when you have that kind of flurry going on. We have to do a
lot of things on a real-time basis, and that is one of them.
But that is only, but to report that, to report it to the FEC and
have the FEC bring that report out in their own good time, in a time
that it is not possible for the public to understand where the monies
come from, and we agree, I believe, that utilization of funds to
advance a candidacy or to advance a cause are political speech, but
free speech.
So if funds are speech, and the reporting of those funds is an open
process, it needs to be in a timely fashion. So say if there were, what
if there happened to be an entity out there that was one who was
rejected by Democrats and Republicans but put a lot of money in a
campaign and that didn't show up until after the election, Madam
Speaker. But the public, had they known that, might have voted for the
candidate who didn't receive those funds. That is my argument as to why
we need to have real-time reporting.
But I want to take this back to the blogosphere. We have people out
there that have their blogs and they are watching the mainstream news
media. They are interacting with other blogs. They have their
information conduits that come from whatever their access points are.
Maybe they happen to be in politics, or maybe they are just a pundit
that is well wired and well connected. And they might see information
that the rest of the country doesn't see. That is how news is gathered.
So the bloggers are gathering the news and they are writing their
opinions and sometimes they are taking information and then sorting it
in a fashion that people can use it and they can understand it.
I submit that we should submit ourselves, Madam Speaker, to the
scrutiny of the blogosphere; that we should have FEC reporting,
campaign finance reporting in real-time in a searchable, sortable,
downloadable format that will allow anyone out there in America that
has access to a computer or to the Internet to go click on that
information, if they want to know where Steve King's revenue stream
came from, download that into a database that you can sort.
If you want to sort it alphabetically, sort it alphabetically. If you
want to sort it by dollars, biggest contribution down to smallest, do
that. If you want to sort it by date, do that. If you want to sort it
by name, do that. But we should put that information out to the public
so that you can scrutinize, in the public, where our campaign funds
come from, so that you can evaluate sometimes the positions that we
take. Because if they can be indexed to the influence of money, you
need to hold us accountable. We owe you our best judgment.
We don't owe the public a vote that is a bought vote. And the public
needs to have an opportunity to identify if there is someone who is
influenced too much by money, and it needs to happen in real-time. It
needs to happen every single day 30 days prior to an election. That is
part of the Sunlight Act, to shed light on our Federal Election
Commission reporting, real-time, Internet accessible, downloadable,
searchable, sortable database so that the American public has access.
Now, Madam Speaker, that would take care of the reporting on our FEC
documents. Essential open process, put me in the fish bowl, make it
real-time. I am already in the fish bowl. Let's be honest and open
about it and we will get these adjustments made, and they will be made
by the people out there in the country, and that is where it should be.
The next part of this that needs reform even more, Madam Speaker, is
our personal financial reporting from an ethics perspective. And I will
reiterate that when a Member of Congress files a financial disclosure
form and files it under the ethics rules that are there, they sign that
document and pledge that it is true and accurate and done so within the
rules and the guidelines of ethics. And to violate that, to willfully
violate that and falsely report is a felony. It is a felony. It is
worse to report wrong data on your ethics than it is to come into the
United States illegally. It is a felony to report inaccurate
information willfully on our financial disclosure forms.
But we have ranges of financial reporting, ranges that, not all of
them committed to memory, and I didn't come down here prepared to go
through them component by component. But I can just give some examples
off the top of my head, Madam Speaker. And it works kind of this way.
If you have liabilities, I am speaking again in general terms, not to
the specific numbers within their financial reporting. If you have
liabilities, perhaps between zero and $100,000, you put a little X in
that column on this little kind of little spread sheet but it is a
paper spread sheet. So you put an X in there and say, well, I owe
somewhere between zero and $100,000. Or maybe you say I have no
liabilities. And if you have assets that might be within $250,000 and
$750,000, you put a little X in that box.
Well, then if you want to analyze what somebody is worth, you might
have $100,000 worth of debt and they might have no more than $250,000
worth of assets, but you can't determine if they have no liability or
$100,000 worth of liability and you can't determine whether they have
$250,000 worth of assets or $750,000 worth of assets. And so as people
go up the line in their reporting, the difference, the dollars in
disparity get greater and greater and greater to the extent that, Madam
Speaker, we have a Member seated in this Congress who reported low six
digits in net worth assets 5 years earlier, and then 5 years later,
showed up with somewhere between $6.4 million and $25 million in net
worth. How does a person make $6 million in assets or, excuse me, in
net worth value over a period of 5 years on the salary of a Member of
Congress? How could a person expand that from $6.4 million on up to $25
million. Those questions cannot be legitimately answered without the
Department of Justice and search warrants and Ryder trucks and filing
cabinets loaded up to take into the investigation and computers being
picked up and brought in and a massive financial analysis to figure out
what really was going on. Were there taxpayer dollars that were pouring
into this? Was there a Member of Congress that was enriching himself at
the expense of the taxpayers? That is why we have the reporting of our
finances.
But the ranges that are in there don't allow for the public to see
that early

[[Page 322]]

enough to be able to call that question, get it into the media and
bring that Member into bay so that it doesn't get completely out of
hand. This one, from my viewpoint, looks like it is completely out of
hand, and I think it is going to take more tha months yet for Justice
to be able to do complete scrutiny of this and find out what really
happened.
But if that Member that I am referencing, and if every Member, and I
am speaking about every Member in this Congress, were required to put
down exactly the dollar amount of their liabilities and exactly the
dollar amounts of their assets so that you could look at their net
worth, and understand that there is an amount of appreciation that
might come with real estate investment. There might be an amount of
appreciation that comes with stock options and investments. That needs
to be reported. That should be traceable and trackable, and we should
be required to put down exact dollar amounts, not ranges. Not a range
of $5 to $25 million. If I were in that range, it is a lot of
difference between being worth $5 million and $25 million. Where did
the money come from is the reason that we have to report our finances.
The American people, Madam Speaker, do not have access to that
information. That allows unethical Members of Congress to hide the
worth that they may have been gathering in a fashion that is less than
ethical. I believe we need to have sunlight on all of the financial
proceedings, not just our Federal Election Commission reporting, not
just our campaign side, but on our personal side as we are required
today, but not in a range, not in a range of $5 to $25 million, not in
a range of zero to $100 now, or $250,000 to $750,000, but in a range
that is to the nearest dollar.
Exact reporting, and, Madam Speaker, do so in real-time. Do so in a
downloadable, searchable, sortable database format, so that the
bloggers out there, or anyone who has access to the Internet, be it a
public library or their laptop on the bus or whether it is their hard-
wired computer that sits in their basement, can sit down and say, I
think I have been watching somebody here that is my Member of Congress.
I don't know how they are doing so well. I am hearing rumors out here.
Let's see what's really happened and go look and see, if we are going
to be an open process, let's be an open process. Let's put sunlight on
everything that we do in this Congress, Madam Speaker.
Let's put real-time reporting, downloadable, searchable, sortable
formats on our FEC reporting for our campaign funds. Let's do that same
thing for our personal finances. Let's open this up to the American
people. Let them scrutinize our finances and the movement of our
finances so that if some Member can be in here in the year 2000 with a
net worth of perhaps $100,000, and in the year 2005 have a net worth of
$6.4 million, or more, the American public can ask the question, why.
Why did that take that kind of jump? It is not something that can be
analyzed or justified unless there are special conditions. Those
conditions, those circumstances have not been addressed at this point.
I believe we need sunlight on everything that we do, sunlight on our
campaign stream, sunlight on our personal finances.
And while we are shedding light on what is going on here in the
Chamber, Madam Speaker, it is a bit of a surprise to many of us who
come into this Congress to walk down here on the floor of Congress and
hear a debate going on and it doesn't seem to be fitting with the
debate we were watching on C-SPAN on the television in our office in
the 5-minute walk over here. Things have changed. And you can walk on
the floor of this Congress and thinking you are coming to weigh in on
the debate of H. Res. 5 and find out you are debating H.R. 3495.
Now, neither one of those bills has a name in my mind. But we have
names for these bills too that help describe what it is we are
debating. And we are sitting in this technological era, where I have
just called for real-time access for financial reporting of the Members
of Congress, but the people that are sitting in the gallery here in
this House of Representatives, Madam Speaker, unless they have got some
kind of ear piece in them or some kind of a BlackBerry that they are
allowed to have and I don't know that they are, that can tell them what
is going on here on the floor of Congress they will not know when they
walk in this Chamber what this debate is all about.
They will not know the bill that is before us. They will not know the
amendment we are discussing. They will not know why some of the
rhetoric doesn't match the language of the bill and the intent of the
subject we are talking about. They can't know, Madam Speaker, because
there isn't a single sign around this Chamber that tells the people
that come into the gallery to witness the people's House what it is we
are actually talking about. And if a Member of Congress walks in and
they have been 1 minute or 5 minutes or 10 minutes out of the loop in
their walk from their office and their watching their C-SPAN camera to
come over here, the bill may have changed or a bill may have been
temporarily deferred. It might be a different one that is taken up. And
in that transfer of that subject matter, they can't know unless they
walk over here and interrupt the person or the staff and ask what are
we discussing, what are we debating. What is happening. I thought I
came over here to talk on H.R. 6, and instead I am over here on H.R.
3094.
The reason that we don't know that is because we don't use the
simplest of technology, a technology that at least when we vote puts
the number of the bill up here on either end of the Chamber,
illuminates it on the wooden panels so that you can see the vote that
comes up. There is no technological reason, there is no procedural
reason why we can't just ask for the sunlight bill on finances, why we
can't just shine the light up on the wall, a subject matter that is
being debated, the number of the bill that is being debated and the
name and perhaps the number of the amendment that is also under
discussion at the moment. That would allow anyone who comes in off the
street to witness the debate and deliberation of the people's House to
immediately sit down and understand what the debate is all about and
understand what the amendment is and who has got the amendment up, and
they will figure out then instantly who is the proponent, who is the
opponent, and the process becomes more open.
The simplest thing that should be nonpartisan, this very simple idea
is not just my idea but an idea that is supported and endorsed by many.
I would ask if we could submit this idea to the freshmen that have come
in. Those who have come out of State legislatures understand that the
technology is there and has been there for years in State legislatures.
When you walk into the chamber of a State House or a State Senate
almost anywhere in the country, the subject of the bill is illuminated
on the wall, the bill number is illuminated on the wall, the name of
the person offering the amendment and the number of the amendment is
offered on the wall with a short description of the bill, the
amendment, so that the public can easily see what is going on, so that
the members who are elected can walk in the room and instantaneously
understand the process that they have walked into and be able to pick
up immediately and engage in the process.

{time} 1615

That is part of the light that needs to be shined on this process,
Madam Speaker. And I raise this issue up with this particular
discussion because it happens to be something that is almost without
cost. It should be absolutely bipartisan. In fact, it should be
nonpartisan in its nature. Everyone who serves here should be
interested in being able to have easy access to the process and the
procedure we happen to be under. And it is something that allows the
people in the gallery to understand what is happening.
Right now, it could have ``Special Order by King'' on there. They
could have a little clock on there to tell me how much time I have left
before the gavel drops and my time has run and expired.
But at this point I would ask the Speaker how much time I have
remaining.

[[Page 323]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The gentleman has 30 seconds.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Oh, boy. The gentleman will then immediately
conclude my discussion, and I really appreciate that I have been able
to bring it to that conclusion in exactly the 60 minutes that have been
allowed. I appreciate also the privilege in speaking to you, Madam
Speaker.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 16 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

{time} 1845
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Cooper) at 6 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday next for
morning hour debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Colorado?
There was no objection

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Brown of South Carolina (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today
and January 4 after 3:30 p.m. on account of the death of his daughter.
Mr. Buyer (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
medical reasons.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Ms. Woolsey) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Spratt, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Ms. Foxx) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at their own request) to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Hunter, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 46 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday,
January 9, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., for morning hour debate.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

24. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Importation of Fruits and
Vegetables [Docket No. 03-086-3] (RIN: 0579-AC23) received
December 19, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
25. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Labor Reimbursement on DoD Non-
Commercial Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts (DFARS
Case 2006-D030) (RIN: 0750-AF44) received December 14, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed
Services.
26. A letter from the Chief Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket No.
FEMA-B-7474] received December 21, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
27. A letter from the Chief Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received December
21, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
28. A letter from the Chief Counsel/FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determination -- received December
21, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
29. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve Board, transmitting the System's final rule --
Electronic Fund Transfers [Regulation E; Docket No. R-1265]
received December 15, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
30. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant General
Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law, Department of
Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy
Conservation Program; Test Procedures for Certain Consumer
Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment;
Technical Amendment to Energy Conservation Standards for
Certain Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment [Docket No. EE-RM/TP-05-500] (RIN: 1904-
AB53) received December 11, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
31. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Acquisition Regulations -- received December
20, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
32. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Retirement
Thrift Investment Board, transmitting the Board's final rule
-- Court Orders and Legal Processes Affecting Thrift Savings
Plan Accounts -- received September 29, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
33. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- North Dakota Regulatory Program [SATS No. ND-
049-FOR, Amendment No. XXXVI] received December 15, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
34. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction [Docket No.
001005281-0369-02; I.D. 112006D] received December 15, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
35. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Northeastern Multispecies
Fishery; 2006 Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations
Plan and Agreement and Allocation of Georges Bank Cod Total
Allowable Catch [Docket No. 060808213-6300-02; I.D. 073106C]
(RIN: 0648-AU56) received December 15, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
36. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery; Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason
Adjustments [Docket No. 051014263-6028-03; I.D. 112106B]
received December 15, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
37. A letter from the Senior Counsel, Department of
Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Supplement to Justice Department Procedures and Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations to Ensure Compliance With
the National Environmental Policy Act [Docket No. USMS 101]
(RIN: 1105-AB13) received December 12, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
38. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-602,
AT-802, and AT-802A Airplanes

[[Page 324]]

[Docket No. FAA-2006-24228; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-
22-AD; Amendment 39-14805; AD 2006-22-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
39. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 777-200, and
777-300 Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2000-NM-360-AD;
Amendment 39-14789; AD 2006-21-05] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
40. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney JT8D-1, -1A, -1B, -
7, -7A, -7B, -9, -9A, -11, -15, -15A, -17, -17A, -17R, -17AR,
-209, -217, -217A, -217C, and -219 Turbofan Engines [Docket
No. FAA-2006-25809; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-30-AD;
Amendment 39-14791; AD 2006-17- 07R1] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
41. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A321 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2006-25060; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-119-AD;
Amendment 39-14792; AD 2006-21-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
42. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 Series
Airplanes Equipped with General Electric GE90-94B Engines
[Docket No. FAA-2006-26085; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
142-AD; Amendment 39-14794; AD 2006-21-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
43. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Turmo IV A and IV C
Series Turboshaft Engines [Docket No. FAA-2006-25730;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-31-AD; Amendment 39-14796; AD
2006-21-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received December 13, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
44. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A340-200,
and A340-300 Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2006-26083;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-185-AD; Amendment 39-14793; AD
2006-21-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received December 13, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
45. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; AeroSpace Technologies of Australia
Pty Ltd. Models N22B, N22S, and N24A Airplanes [Docket No.
FAA-2006-25928; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-53-AD;
Amendment 39-14797; AD 2006-21-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
46. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arriel 2B Series
Turboshaft Engines [Docket No. FAA-2005-23809; Directorate
Identifier 2005-NE-52-AD; Amendment 39-14795; AD 2006-21-10]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
47. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With
Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850()/-851() Integrated Navigation
Units [Docket No. FAA-2005-20080; Directorate Identifier
2003-NM-193-AD; Amendment 39-14802; AD 2006-22-05] received
December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
48. A letter from the Paralegal, FTA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Controlled Substances and Alcohol Misuse Testing [Docket No.
FTA-2006-24592] (RIN: 2132-AA86) received December 13, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
49. A letter from the FHWA Regulations Officer, Department
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Worker Visibility [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2005-23200] (RIN:
2125-AF11) received December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
50. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Additional Types on Child Restraint Systems That May Be
Furnished and Used on Aircraft; Corrections [Docket No. FAA-
2006-25334; Amendment Nos. 125-51 and 135-106] (RIN: 2120-
AI76) received December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
51. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Reservation System for Unscheduled Arrivals at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport [Docket No. FAA-2005-19411; SFAR
No. 105] (RIN: 2120-AI47) received December 13, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
52. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan Requirements --
Amendments [EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0001; FRL-8258-3] (RIN: 2050-
AG23) received December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
53. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule -- NASA FAR
Supplement Administrative Changes (RIN: 2700-31) received
December 13, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Science and Technology.
54. A letter from the Director of Regulations Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Extension of the Presumptive Period for
Compensation for Gulf War Veterans (RIN: 2900-AM47) received
December 20, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
55. A letter from the Assistant to the Secretary for Reg
Policy and Mgt, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Filipino Veterans' Benefits
Improvements (RIN: 2900-AK65) received December 29, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
56. A letter from the Chief, Trade and Commercial
Regulations Branch, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- United States --
Chile Free Trade Agreement (RIN: 1505-AB47) received December
15, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
57. A letter from the Director of Reg. Management, Office
of Regulation Policy & Mgt, Department of Veterans Affairs,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Transfer of
Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty Entitlement to Dependents
(RIN: 2900-AM12) received December 20, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees on Armed
Services and Veterans' Affairs.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

[Filed on December 15, 2006]

Mr. HUNTER: Committee on Armed Services. Report of the
Activities of the Committee on Armed Services for the 109th
Congress (Rept. 109-731). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.

[The following actions occurred on December 19, 2006]

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. In the matter of Representative James
McDermott (Rept. 109-732). Referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Investigation of allegations related to
improper conduct involving Members and current or former
House pages (Rept. 109-733). Referred to the House Calendar.

[Filed on December 21, 2006]

Mr. LEWIS of California: Committee on Appropriations.
Report on Activities of the Committee on Appropriations,
109th Congress (Rept. 109-734). Referred to the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be
printed.
Mr. POMBO: Committee on Resources. Report on Legislative
and Oversight Activities of the Committee on Resources During
the 109th Congress (Rept. 109-735). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to
be printed.

[Filed on December 22, 2006]

Mr. THOMAS: Committee on Ways and Means. Report on the
Legislative and Oversight Activities of the Committee on Ways
and Means During the 109th Congress (Rept. 109-736). Referred
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
and ordered to be printed.

[Filed on December 27, 2006]

Mr. BUYER: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Activities
Report of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 109th Congress
(Rept. 109-737). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.

[Filed on December 29, 2006]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Summary of Legislative and Oversight
Activities

[[Page 325]]

of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the
109th Congress (Rept. 109-738). Referred to the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union.

[Filed on December 29, 2006]

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia: Committee on Government Reform.
Activities of the House Committee on Government Reform for
the 109th Congress (Rept. 109-739). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

[Filed on January 2, 2007]

Mr. MANZULLO: Committee on Small Business. Summary of
Activities of the Committee on Small Business for the 109th
Congress (Rept. 109-740). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. KING of New York: Committee on Homeland Security.
Report on Legislative and Oversight Activities of the House
Committee on Homeland Security During the 109th Congress
(Rept. 109-741). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
Mr. OXLEY: Committee on Financial Services. Report on the
Activity of the Committee on Financial Services for the 109th
Congress (Rept. 109-742). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. DREIER: Committee on Rules. Survey of Activities of the
House Committee on Rules, 109th Congress (Rept. 109-743).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Summary of Activities of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct for the 109th Congress (Rept.
109-744). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. McKEON: Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Report on the Activities of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce During the 109th Congress (Rept. 109-745).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
Mr. GOODLATTE: Committee on Agriculture. Report of the
Committee on Agriculture on Activities During the 109th
Congress (Rept. 109-746). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. HYDE: Committee on International Relations. Legislative
Review Activities of the Committee on International
Relations, 109th Congress (Rept. 109-747). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. BOEHLERT: Committee on Science. Summary of Activities
of the Committee on Science for the 109th Congress (Rept.
109-748). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. Report on
the Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary During the
109th Congress (Rept. 109-749). Referred to the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. NUSSLE: Committee on the Budget. Activities and Summary
Report of the Committee on the Budget, 109th Congress (Rept.
109-750). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

[Filed on January 5, 2007]

By Mr. Thompson of Mississippi (for himself, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Skelton, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Ackerman,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Arcuri, Mr.
Baca, Mr. Baird, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Bean, Mr. Becerra,
Ms. Berkley, Mr. Berman, Mr. Berry, Mr. Bishop of New
York, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Boren, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Brady
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Butterfield,
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Carnahan,
Mr. Carney, Ms. Castor, Mr. Chandler, Mrs.
Christensen, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cramer, Mr.
Cuellar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr.
Davis of Alabama, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee,
Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeGette,
Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Doggett,
Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Ellsworth,
Mr. Emanuel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Al Green of
Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Hall of New York, Mr. Hare, Ms. Harman, Mr. Hastings
of Florida, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Hill, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Holden, Mr. Holt,
Mr. Honda, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Inslee, Mr.
Israel, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Kagen, Ms. Kaptur, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind, Mr. Klein of Florida,
Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larsen
of Washington, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Lee,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Loebsack, Ms.
Zoe Lofgren of California, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Lynch, Mr.
Mahoney of Florida, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Markey, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Ms.
McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. McIntyre, Mr. McNerney, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Meehan,
Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr.
Mitchell, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Patrick Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Obey, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ortiz,
Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Price of North Carolina,
Mr. Rahall, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr.
Ross, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Salazar, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr.
Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Schwartz,
Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Sestak, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Sherman,
Mr. Shuler, Mr. Sires, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Ms. Solis, Mr. Space, Mr. Spratt, Mr.
Stark, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Sutton, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Thompson of California, Mr. Tierney, Mrs. Jones of
Ohio, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico,
Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Walz of Minnesota,
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr.
Waxman, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. Wynn,
Mr. Yarmuth, and Mr. Hinojosa):
H.R. 1. A bill to provide for the implementation of the
recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States; to the Committees on Homeland
Security, Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, Intelligence
(Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Transportation and
Infrastructure, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and
Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. George Miller of California (for himself, Mr.
Hoyer, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Allen, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Andrews, Mr.
Arcuri, Mr. Baca, Mr. Baird, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Bean,
Mr. Becerra, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Berman, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Bishop of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Braley of Iowa, Mr. Butterfield, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Capuano, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Carney, Ms.
Castor, Mr. Chandler, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Clarke,
Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Costello, Mr. Courtney, Mr.
Crowley, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Lincoln Davis of
Tennessee, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Delahunt,
Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Doggett, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Emanuel, Mr.
Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Faleomavaega,
Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Ms. Giffords, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Gordon, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Hare, Ms.
Harman, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Herseth, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms.
Hirono, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Holden, Mr. Holt, Mr. Honda,
Ms. Hooley, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Israel, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Kagen,
Mr. Kanjorski, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kildee,
Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Kind, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Lantos, Mr.
Larsen of Washington, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr.
LaTourette, Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Mr. Lipinski, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Lynch, Mr.
Mahoney of Florida, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.

[[Page 326]]

Markey, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Ms.
McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. McHugh, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. McNerney, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Meehan, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Michaud, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Moore of
Kansas, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Patrick
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tim Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Obey, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ortiz,
Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Pomeroy,
Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Rangel,
Mr. Reyes, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Ross, Mr. Rothman, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan
of Ohio, Mr. Salazar, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff,
Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Scott of
Virginia, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Shays, Ms.
Shea-Porter, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Sires, Mr.
Skelton, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Snyder, Ms. Solis, Mr.
Space, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Sutton,
Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr.
Thompson of California, Mr. Tierney, Mrs. Jones of
Ohio, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico,
Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Walsh of New York,
Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms.
Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Welch
of Vermont, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Yarmuth):
H.R. 2. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage;
to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Ms. DeGette (for herself, Mr. Castle, Mr. Langevin,
Mr. Shays, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Dingell, Mr.
Dent, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Porter, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Lewis
of California, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Regula, Mr. Pallone,
Mrs. Bono, Mr. Stark, Mr. Bilbray, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Tom Davis of Virginia, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Reichert, Mr.
Carnahan, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs.
Biggert, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Allen, Mr. Altmire,
Mr. Andrews, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Baca, Mr. Baird, Ms.
Bean, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Berman, Mr.
Berry, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms.
Bordallo, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Boyd of
Florida, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Braley of
Iowa, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Butterfield,
Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Carney, Ms. Carson, Ms.
Castor, Mr. Chandler, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Cleaver, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Costa, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Doggett, Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Giffords, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr.
Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Hall of New York, Mr. Hare, Ms. Harman, Mr. Hastings
of Florida, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Hinchey,
Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Holt, Mr. Honda, Ms.
Hooley, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Israel, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr.
Jefferson, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Kagen,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kind, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr.
Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Loebsack, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mrs. Lowey,
Mr. Lynch, Mr. Mahoney of Florida, Mrs. Maloney of
New York, Mr. Markey, Mr. Matheson, Ms. Matsui, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Meehan, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Michaud, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California,
Mr. Moore of Kansas, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr.
Moran of Virginia, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr.
Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Nadler, Mrs.
Napolitano, Ms. Norton, Mr. Obey, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Ortiz, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Pomeroy, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Reyes, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Ross, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Roybal-Allard,
Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Salazar, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms.
Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Scott of
Georgia, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sestak, Ms. Shea-Porter,
Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sires, Mr. Skelton, Ms. Slaughter,
Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Snyder, Ms. Solis, Mr.
Space, Mr. Spratt, Ms. Sutton, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of California,
Mr. Tierney, Mr. Towns, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Upton, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms.
Velazquez, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr.
Weiner, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Wexler, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Yarmuth, and Mr.
Hinojosa):
H.R. 3. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for human embryonic stem cell research; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. Dingell (for himself, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Rangel,
Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ackerman,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Arcuri, Mr.
Baca, Mr. Baird, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Becerra, Ms.
Berkley, Mr. Berman, Mr. Berry, Mr. Bishop of New
York, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Boucher, Ms. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Butterfield,
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Carnahan,
Mr. Carney, Ms. Castor, Mr. Chandler, Mrs.
Christensen, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis of
Alabama, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mr. DeFazio,
Ms. DeGette, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks,
Mr. Doggett, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Ellison,
Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Emanuel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Giffords, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr.
Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hall of New
York, Mr. Hare, Ms. Harman, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
Ms. Herseth, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hinchey, Ms.
Hirono, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Holden, Mr. Honda, Ms. Hooley,
Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Israel, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr.
Kagen, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind,
Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Langevin, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. Zoe Lofgren
of California, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Mahoney of Florida,
Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Markey, Ms. Matsui,
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota,
Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr.
Michaud, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Moran of Virginia, Mr. Patrick Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Obey, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ortiz,
Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Reyes, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Ross, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Roybal-Allard,
Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Salazar, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr.
Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Schwartz,
Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Sires, Mr. Skelton, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. Snyder, Ms. Solis, Mr. Space, Mr.
Spratt, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Sutton, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of California,
Mr. Tierney, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Walz of
Minnesota, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Waters, Ms.
Watson, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. Wynn,
Mr. Yarmuth, and Mr. Hinojosa):
H.R. 4. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries; to the

[[Page 327]]

Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

____________________

[Filed on January 4, 2007]

By Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. Flake, Mr. Van Hollen,
Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Inslee, and Mr.
Mack):
H.R. 11. A bill to reiterate that chapters 119 and 121 of
title 18, United States Code, and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 are the exclusive means by which
domestic electronic surveillance may be conducted, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select),
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KIRK:
H.R. 12. A bill to permit certain school districts in
Illinois to be reconstituted for purposes of determining
assistance under the Impact Aid program; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. BACA:
H.R. 13. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out
a project for water supply for Rialto, Fontana, and Colton,
California; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. KIRK (for himself and Mr. Platts):
H.R. 14. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
deny retirement benefits accrued by an individual as a Member
of Congress if such individual is convicted of any of certain
offenses; to the Committee on House Administration, and in
addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DINGELL:
H.R. 15. A bill to provide a program of national health
insurance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and
Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GILCHREST (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mrs. Drake,
Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Castle, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Platts, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
Mr. Holden, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Cummings, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis
of Virginia, Mr. Wynn, Ms. Norton, Mr. Hinchey, and
Mr. Sarbanes):
H.R. 16. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay
program; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr.
Spratt, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Dicks, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr.
Herger, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Hastings of Washington,
Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Radanovich, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Thompson of
California, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Baird, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rehberg,
Ms. Herseth, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Renzi, Mrs McMorris
Rodgers, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Lipinski, and Ms.
Slaughter):
H.R. 17. A bill to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to
the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. RUSH (for himself, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Conyers):
H.R. 18. A bill to provide for the issuance of a
commemorative postage stamp in honor of Rosa Parks; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. CALVERT (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Bono,
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Rohrabacher,
Mr. Dreier, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Issa, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. Royce, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Wamp, Mr.
Burgess, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr.
Goode):
H.R. 19. A bill to require employers to conduct employment
eligibility verification; to the Committee on the Judiciary,
and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. RUSH:
H.R. 20. A bill to provide for research on, and services
for individuals with, postpartum depression and psychosis; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. FARR (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Gilchrest, and
Mr. Saxton):
H.R. 21. A bill to establish a national policy for our
oceans, to strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, to establish a national and regional ocean
governance structure, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on Science and Technology, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. COLE of Oklahoma (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
Hayes, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Miller
of Florida, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr.
Bishop of Utah, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Butterfield, Mrs. Miller
of Michigan, Mrs McMorris Rodgers, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Boren, Mr. Saxton, Mrs. Jo
Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Turner, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, and Mr. Jones of North Carolina):
H.R. 22. A bill to make appropriations for military
construction and family housing projects for the Department
of Defense for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Appropriations.
By Mr. FILNER:
H.R. 23. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to
provide benefits to certain individuals who served in the
United States merchant marine (including the Army Transport
Service and the Naval Transport Service) during World War II;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. RADANOVICH (for himself, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Costa, and Mr. George Miller of
California):
H.R. 24. A bill to authorize the implementation of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. LINDER (for himself, Mr. Boren, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
McCaul of Texas, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Culberson, Mr.
Miller of Florida, Mr. Pence, Mr. Conaway, Mr.
Crenshaw, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Poe, Mrs. Jo Ann
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Goode, Ms. Granger, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Brady of Texas,
Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr.
Stearns):
H.R. 25. A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic
opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes,
abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a
national sales tax to be administered primarily by the
States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ISSA (for himself and Mr. Dreier):
H.R. 26. A bill to amend section 276 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act to impose mandatory sentencing ranges with
respect to aliens who reenter the United States after having
been removed, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 27. A bill to designate the exclusive economic zone of
the United States as the ``Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive
Economic Zone of the United States''; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 28. A bill to transfer certain land in Riverside
County, California, and San Diego County, California, from
the Bureau of Land Management to the United States to be held
in trust for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 29. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to construct facilities to provide water for irrigation,
municipal, domestic, military, and other uses from the Santa
Margarita River, California, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 30. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Eastern
Municipal Water District Recycled Water System Pressurization
and Expansion Project; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mr. Calvert, and Mrs. Bono):
H.R. 31. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the
Secretary of the

[[Page 328]]

Interior to participate in the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District Wildomar Service Area Recycled Water
Distribution Facilities and Alberhill Wastewater Treatment
and Reclamation Facility Projects; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 32. A bill to provide for a credit for certain health
care benefits in determining the minimum wage; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 33. A bill to provide for a credit for employers of
tipped employees in determining the minimum wage required in
States that require employers to pay a minimum wage at a rate
higher than the Federal rate; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
By Mr. ISSA (for himself and Mr. Schiff):
H.R. 34. A bill to establish a pilot program in certain
United States district courts to encourage enhancement of
expertise in patent cases among district judges; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 35. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to require the use of science
assessments in the calculation of adequate yearly progress,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and
Labor.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 36. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to encourage teachers to pursue teaching math and science
subjects at elementary and secondary schools; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 37. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to encourage businesses to improve math and science education
at elementary and secondary schools; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 38. A bill to amend the Head Start Act to improve the
math and science readiness of disadvantaged children; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. Ramstad):
H.R. 39. A bill to preserve the Arctic coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, as wilderness in
recognition of its extraordinary natural ecosystems and for
the permanent good of present and future generations of
Americans; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Norton, Mr. Olver,
Mr. Wynn, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Rush, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr.
Cummings, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Lee, Mr. Honda, and
Mr. Clay):
H.R. 40. A bill to acknowledge the fundamental injustice,
cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United
States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and
to establish a commission to examine the institution of
slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and
economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the
impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make
recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ:
H.R. 41. A bill to repeal the prohibition on the payment of
interest on demand deposits, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ:
H.R. 42. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
continue in effect and expand the Lifeline Assistance Program
and the Link Up Program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ:
H.R. 43. A bill to amend the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 to provide financial assistance for
the development and reuse of brownfields; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ (for herself and Mr. Towns):
H.R. 44. A bill to preserve affordable housing
opportunities for low-income families, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. Serrano, Mr.
Crowley, and Mr. Towns):
H.R. 45. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to make grants to community-based organizations and local
redevelopment agencies operating in low-income communities to
promote increased access to and consumption of fresh fruits,
fresh vegetables, and other healthy foods among residents of
such communities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Agriculture, and Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ:
H.R. 46. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide tax incentives for small businesses, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mr. Clyburn, and Ms.
Norton):
H.R. 47. A bill to direct the Architect of the Capitol to
establish and display within the Capitol Visitor Center a
suitable exhibit which depicts the Congressional careers,
accomplishments, and contributions of the 22 African-American
Members of Congress who served during the Reconstruction and
Post-Reconstruction Eras, and a suitable exhibit which
acknowledges the use of slave labor in the construction of
the Capitol; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. WELCH of Vermont:
H.R. 48. A bill to redesignate the White Rocks National
Recreation Area in the State of Vermont as the ``Robert T.
Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area''; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
H.R. 49. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1300 North Frontage Road
West in Vail, Colorado, as the ``Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post
Office Building''; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 50. A bill to reauthorize the African Elephant
Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
Act of 1994; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 51. A bill to amend titles XI and XIX of the Social
Security Act to remove the cap on Medicaid payments for
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and American Samoa and to adjust the Medicaid
statutory matching rate for those territories; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 52. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to repeal the cap on the cover over of tax on distilled
spirits to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 53. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into a long-term lease with the Government of the
United States Virgin Islands to provide land on the island of
Saint John, Virgin Islands, for the establishment of a
school, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 54. A bill to expand the eligibility of individuals to
qualify for loan forgiveness for teachers in order to provide
additional incentives for teachers currently employed or
seeking employment in economically depressed rural areas,
Territories, and Indian Reservations; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 55. A bill to establish the District Court of the
Virgin Islands as a court under article III of the United
States Constitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 56. A bill to extend the supplemental security income
benefits program to Guam and the United States Virgin
Islands; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 57. A bill to repeal certain sections of the Act of
May 26, 1936, pertaining to the Virgin Islands; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 58. A bill to amend the Revised Organic Act of the
Virgin Islands to authorize the legislature of the Virgin
Islands to create municipal governments; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 59. A bill to convey certain submerged lands to the
Government of the Virgin Islands, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Cooper, Mr. Wamp, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Inslee, Mr.
Dicks, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Hastings of Washington,
and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers):
H.R. 60. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to make permanent the deduction of State and local general
sales taxes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 61. A bill to amend the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to extend the
deadline for the submission of the final report of the
Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, to provide for the appointment
of additional members for the Commission, to ensure the
availability of funds for the Commission, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 62. A bill to amend the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 to extend the deadline for the
submission of the final report of the Commission on the
Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United
States, to provide for the appointment of additional members
for the Commission, to ensure the availability of funds for
the Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.

[[Page 329]]

By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 63. A bill to provide that the approved application
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for the drug
commonly known as RU-486 is deemed to have been withdrawn, to
provide for the review by the Comptroller General of the
United States of the process by which the Food and Drug
Administration approved such drug, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 64. A bill to direct the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish an independent panel to assess the
homeland security needs of the National Capital Region; to
the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. McINTYRE (for himself, Mr. Etheridge, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Hayes, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Kildee, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Price
of North Carolina, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Rahall):
H.R. 65. A bill to provide for the recognition of the
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. McINTYRE (for himself and Mr. Hayes):
H.R. 66. A bill to establish the SouthEast Crescent
Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. McINTYRE:
H.R. 67. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve the outreach activities of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. McINTYRE:
H.R. 68. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 to allow the Secretary of the Army to extend the
period during which the Secretary may provide beach
nourishment for a water resources development project; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. McINTYRE:
H.R. 69. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to eliminate the 5-month waiting period for entitlement
to disability benefits and to eliminate reconsideration as an
intervening step between initial benefit entitlement
decisions and subsequent hearings on the record on such
decisions; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 70. A bill to authorize States to regulate the receipt
and disposal of out-of-State municipal solid waste; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 71. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 to repeal the requirement that persons making
disbursements for electioneering communications file reports
on such disbursements with the Federal Election Commission
and the prohibition against the making of disbursements for
electioneering communications by corporations and labor
organizations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
House Administration.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 72. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to prohibit the use of public funds for political party
conventions; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 73. A bill to protect the right to obtain firearms for
security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or
home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 74. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to
authorize an additional category of national trail known as a
national discovery trail, to provide special requirements for
the establishment and administration of national discovery
trails, and to designate the cross-country American Discovery
Trail as the first national discovery trail; to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 75. A bill to recognize the birthdays of Presidents
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 76. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase the number vehicles for which the alternative
motor vehicle credit is allowed; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 77. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to change the deadline for income tax returns for calendar
year taxpayers from the 15th of April to the first Monday in
November; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 78. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act and title IV of the Social Security Act to provide for
the denial of family classification petitions filed by an
individual who owes child support arrearages; to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee
on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 79. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act and
the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act with respect
to penalties for powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenses;
to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 80. A bill to provide for Federal research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application
activities to enable the development of farms that are net
producers of both food and energy, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to
the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 81. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide that members of the Armed Forces and Selected Reserve
may transfer certain educational assistance benefits to
dependents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baca, Ms. Berkley, Mrs.
Biggert, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of New
York, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
Boyd of Florida, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Carson,
Mr. Chandler, Mr. Clay, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dingell,
Mr. Doggett, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Edwards,
Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Fattah, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Gillmor, Mr.
Graves, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of
Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Hobson, Mr.
Holden, Mr. Honda, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson of
Illinois, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of California, Mrs.
Lowey, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Manzullo, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Moore
of Kansas, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Olver, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Paul, Mr. Rahall,
Mr. Reyes, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez
of California, Mr. Saxton, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr.
Schiff, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Sires, Ms. Solis, Mr.
Stark, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Terry, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Visclosky, Mr.
Waxman, Mr. Wolf, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Ms. Waters, and Mr. Mollohan):
H.R. 82. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall
elimination provisions; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself and Mr. Petri):
H.R. 83. A bill to amend section 42 of title 18, United
States Code, popularly known as the Lacey Act, to add certain
species of carp to the list of injurious species that are
prohibited from being imported or shipped; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. BIGGERT:
H.R. 84. A bill to establish a program of demonstration and
commercial application of advanced energy efficiency
technologies and systems for buildings, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Science and Technology.
By Mrs. BIGGERT:
H.R. 85. A bill to provide for the establishment of centers
to encourage demonstration and commercial application of
advanced energy methods and technologies; to the Committee on
Science and Technology.
By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Johnson
of Illinois, and Mr. Kirk):
H.R. 86. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to expand and extend the incentives for alternative fuel
vehicles and refueling property and to repeal the oil and gas
production incentives added by the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.

[[Page 330]]

By Mrs. BIGGERT:
H.R. 87. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to improve and expand education savings accounts; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. BIGGERT:
H.R. 88. A bill to amend title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to raise awareness of eating
disorders and to create educational programs concerning the
same, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education
and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 89. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
extend eligibility for combat-related special compensation
paid to certain uniformed services retirees who are retired
under chapter 61 of such title with fewer than 20 years of
creditable service; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. BORDALLO (for herself, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Flake):
H.R. 90. A bill to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 to require the disclosure of the original source of
funds made payable to a lobbyist who is subcontracted to
engage in lobbying activities on behalf of a third person or
entity, and the disclosure of the identity of that third
person or entity; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida (for herself and
Mr. Buchanan):
H.R. 91. A bill to establish a program to provide
reinsurance for State natural catastrophe insurance programs
to help the United States better prepare for and protect its
citizens against the ravages of natural catastrophes, to
encourage and promote mitigation and prevention for, and
recovery and rebuilding from such catastrophes, and to better
assist in the financial recovery from such catastrophes; to
the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida:
H.R. 92. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish standards of access to care for veterans seeking
health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida:
H.R. 93. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to protect Social Security beneficiaries against any
reduction in benefits; to the Committee on Rules, and in
addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. CARTER:
H.R. 94. A bill to make funds available for program
integrity purposes, including the data mining project, under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. CARTER:
H.R. 95. A bill to make funds available for fiscal years
2007 and 2008 for program integrity purposes, including the
data mining project, under the Federal Crop Insurance Act; to
the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Mr. Shays, and Mr. Kirk):
H.R. 96. A bill to require criminal background checks on
all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a
venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of
firearms, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. CASTLE (for himself and Mr. Platts):
H.R. 97. A bill to amend the Rules of the House of
Representatives to reform the ethics process, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition
to the Committees on House Administration, Rules, and
Standards of Official Conduct, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DREIER (for himself, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Issa, Mr.
Calvert, and Mr. Bilbray):
H.R. 98. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United
States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved
Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means,
and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Homeland
Security, and Education and Labor, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. CUMMINGS:
H.R. 99. A bill to provide for the establishment of a
hazardous materials cooperative research program; to the
Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
H.R. 100. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to prevent veterans' contributions to education benefits from
reducing Federal student financial assistance; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
H.R. 101. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 to prohibit certain State election administration
officials from actively participating in electoral campaigns;
to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 102. A bill to strengthen and expand scientific and
technological education capabilities of associate-degree-
granting colleges through the establishment of partnership
arrangements with bachelor-degree-granting institutions; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 103. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
create a presumption that disability of a Federal employee in
fire protection activities caused by certain conditions is
presumed to result from the performance of such employee's
duty; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 104. A bill to require assurances that certain family
planning service projects and programs will provide pamphlets
containing the contact information of adoption centers; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 105. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of
establishing the Northern Neck National Heritage Area in
Virginia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 106. A bill to extend Federal recognition to the
Rappahannock Tribe, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 107. A bill to define marriage for all legal purposes
in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one
man and one woman; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 108. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to
establish a program to provide regulatory compliance
assistance to small business concerns, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 109. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to make
service-disabled veterans eligible under the 8(a) business
development program; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 110. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to impose limitations on wetlands mitigation
activities carried out through the condemnation of private
property; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. KANJORSKI (for himself, Mr. Calvert, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Berman, Mr.
Bonner, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Cleaver, Mr.
Culberson, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Franks
of Arizona, Ms. Granger, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Holden, Mr. Holt, Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr.
Langevin, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Lipinski, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Marshall, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Michaud, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Gary
G. Miller of California, Mr. Olver, Mr. Paul, Mr.
Petri, Mr. Platts, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Saxton,
Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Shays, Ms. Solis, Mr.
Tierney, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Gallegly,
Mr. Stearns, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Radanovich,
Ms. Waters, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Barton of
Texas, Mr. Emanuel, and Mr. Doolittle):
H.R. 111. A bill to amend the Bank Holding Company Act of
1956 and the Revised Statutes of the United States to
prohibit financial holding companies and national banks from
engaging, directly or indirectly, in real estate brokerage or
real estate management activities, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 112. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for the payment of stipends to veterans who pursue
doctoral degrees in science or technology; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 113. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to require group health plans to provide coverage for
reconstructive surgery following mastectomy, consistent with
the Women's Health and Cancer Rights

[[Page 331]]

Act of 1998; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 114. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a double deduction for a portion of an
individual's State and local property taxes that are in
excess of the national average; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 115. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a credit against tax for expenses related to the
collection and storage of umbilical cord blood; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 116. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to expand the income tax forgiveness for members of the Armed
Forces who die as a result of wounds, disease, or injury
incurred while serving in a combat zone to include
forgiveness for the last taxable year ending before the
wounds, disease, or injury are incurred; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 117. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for a permanent hold harmless
provision for sole community hospitals under the Medicare
prospective payment system for covered outpatient department
services; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 118. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to negotiate prices for part D covered drugs
for Medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 119. A bill to require that health plans provide
coverage for a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies,
lumpectomies, and lymph node dissection for the treatment of
breast cancer and coverage for secondary consultations; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 120. A bill to reform Federal procedures relating to
intercountry adoption; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DOYLE (for himself and Mrs. Bono):
H.R. 121. A bill to improve efficiency in the Federal
Government through the use of high-performance green
buildings, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight
and Government Reform, Science and Technology, and
Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DREIER (for himself, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Gary
G. Miller of California, and Mr. Calvert):
H.R. 122. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire
regional recycling project and in the Cucamonga Valley Water
District recycling project; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. DREIER (for himself, Ms. Solis, Mr. Gary G.
Miller of California, Mr. Schiff, and Mrs.
Napolitano):
H.R. 123. A bill to authorize appropriations for the San
Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. FORTENBERRY (for himself and Ms. Herseth):
H.R. 124. A bill to require the prompt issuance by the
Secretary of Agriculture of regulations to restore integrity
to the payment limitation requirements applicable to
commodity payments and benefits, to reduce waste, fraud, and
abuse related to the receipt of commodity payments and
benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. FORTENBERRY (for himself and Mr. Berman):
H.R. 125. A bill to provide for a temporary increase in the
number of Iraqi and Afghan translators in the United States
Armed Forces who may be provided status as special
immigrants; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. FORTENBERRY:
H.R. 126. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow loans from individual retirement plans for qualified
small business capital assets; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. Gary
G. Miller of California):
H.R. 127. A bill to amend the National Housing Act to
increase the mortgage amount limits applicable to FHA
mortgage insurance for multifamily housing located in high-
cost areas; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:
H.R. 128. A bill to amend the Federal Education Right to
Privacy Act to improve the access of the victims of crimes to
information concerning the outcome of disciplinary
proceedings by institutions of higher education; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (for himself, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Saxton, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Ferguson, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Rothman):
H.R. 129. A bill to direct the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to designate New Jersey Task
Force 1 as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue
System; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (for himself, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Saxton, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Ferguson, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell,
and Mr. Rothman):
H.R. 130. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security to make grants to first responders, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in
addition to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 131. A bill to impose a mandatory minimum sentence on
a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a
removal proceeding; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 132. A bill to impose a criminal penalty on an alien
who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after
securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to
the United States after voluntarily departing; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 133. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the
United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent
resident aliens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 134. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to deny visas and admission to aliens who have been
unlawfully present in the United States for more than 6
months; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LINDER (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Ms.
Bordallo, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, and Mr. Terry):
H.R. 135. A bill to establish the Twenty-First Century
Water Commission to study and develop recommendations for a
comprehensive water strategy to address future water needs;
to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 136. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to provide that individuals and appropriate authorities
are notified by the Commissioner of Social Security of
evidence of misuse of the Social Security account numbers of
such individuals; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland):
H.R. 137. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 138. A bill to require an employer to take action
after receiving official notice that an individual's Social
Security account number does not match the individual's name,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary,
and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and
Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Ms. GRANGER:
H.R. 139. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a credit for the

[[Page 332]]

purchase of idling reduction systems for diesel-powered on-
highways vehicles; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 140. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
require the amounts reimbursed to institutional providers of
health care services under the TRICARE program to be the same
as amounts reimbursed under Medicare, and to require the
Secretary of Defense to contract for health care services
with at least one teaching hospital in urban areas; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 141. A bill to direct the Secretary of Labor to revise
regulations concerning the recording and reporting of
occupational injuries and illnesses under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 142. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act
to require the arbitration of initial contract negotiation
disputes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 143. A bill to provide for the security of critical
energy infrastructure; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 144. A bill to amend the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to allow States
and localities to provide primary and preventive care to all
individuals; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 145. A bill to amend section 1369 of title 18, United
States Code, to extend Federal jurisdiction over destruction
of veterans' memorials on State or local government property;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 146. A bill to provide Capitol-flown flags to the
families of deceased law enforcement officers; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 147. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to exempt elementary and secondary schools from the fee
imposed on employers filing petitions with respect to non-
immigrant workers under the H-1B program; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 148. A bill to require the Surface Transportation
Board to consider certain issues when deciding whether to
authorize the construction of a railroad line; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 149. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to remove the limitation upon the amount of outside
income which an individual may earn while receiving benefits
under such title, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 150. A bill to prevent the nondisclosure of employer-
owned life insurance coverage of employees as an unfair trade
practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor, and
in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 151. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
ensure that projects funded through the National Institutes
of Health comply with wage rate requirements commonly
referred to as the ``Davis-Bacon Act'', and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 152. A bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health
Service Act and title I of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to require that group and individual
health insurance coverage and group health plans provide
comprehensive coverage for childhood immunization; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 153. A bill to provide that no more than 50 percent of
funding made available under the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 for any fiscal year be provided for
home heating purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and
Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 154. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to phase out the 24-month waiting period for disabled
individuals to become eligible for Medicare benefits, to
eliminate the waiting period for individuals with life-
threatening conditions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Ms. HERSETH:
H.R. 155. A bill to provide compensation to the Lower Brule
and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes of South Dakota for damage to
tribal land caused by Pick-Sloan projects along the Missouri
River; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. HOLDEN:
H.R. 156. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for the payment of dependency and indemnity
compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who
died on or before September 30, 1999, under the same
eligibility conditions as apply to payment of dependency and
indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners
of war who die after that date; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. HOLT (for himself and Mr. Terry):
H.R. 157. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to
conduct a study on the potential fuel savings from
intelligent transportation systems that help businesses and
consumers to plan their travel and avoid delays; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. HOLT:
H.R. 158. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to
mint coins in commemoration of the battlefields of the
Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. HOLT:
H.R. 159. A bill to establish the American Veterans
Congressional Internship Program; to the Committee on House
Administration.
By Mr. HOLT:
H.R. 160. A bill to amend the American Battlefield
Protection Act of 1996 to establish a battlefield acquisition
grant program for the acquisition and protection of
nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of
the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Larsen of Washington, Mr. Honda, Mr. Simpson, Mr.
McDermott, and Ms. Matsui):
H.R. 161. A bill to adjust the boundary of the Minidoka
Internment National Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni
Memorial in Bainbridge Island, Washington, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. JINDAL:
H.R. 162. A bill to adjust the boundary of the Barataria
Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park
and Preserve in the State of Louisiana, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. JINDAL:
H.R. 163. A bill to make permanent marriage penalty relief;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. JINDAL:
H.R. 164. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide for the creation of disaster protection funds by
property and casualty insurance companies for the payment of
policyholders' claims arising from future catastrophic
events; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. JINDAL:
H.R. 165. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to reduce the depreciation recovery period for roof systems;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 166. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 to reform funding for the Seniors
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Agriculture.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 167. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to provide financial assistance for the construction,
improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 168. A bill to amend section 207 of title 18, United
States Code, to further restrict Federal officers and
employees from representing or advising foreign entities
after leaving Government service; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 169. A bill to require that, in cases in which the
annual trade deficit between the United States and another
country is $10,000,000,000 or more for 3 consecutive years,
the President take the necessary steps to create a more
balanced trading relationship with that country; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. KING of Iowa:
H.R. 170. A bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act of
1978 and the Rules of the House of Representatives to
strengthen financial disclosures and to require
precertification of privately-funded travel, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on House Administration, and in
addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each

[[Page 333]]

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Kennedy,
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Berman, Mr. Honda, Ms.
Matsui, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr.
Fattah):
H.R. 171. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to direct the Secretary of Education to
make grants to States for assistance in hiring additional
school-based mental health and student service providers; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 172. A bill to assist teachers and public safety
officers in obtaining affordable housing; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 173. A bill to protect innocent elderly and disabled
tenants in public housing and housing assisted under the
rental assistance program under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 from eviction by reason of
criminal activity; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 174. A bill to reauthorize the public and assisted
housing drug elimination program of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 175. A bill to provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS
in India, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 176. A bill to authorize assistance to the countries
of the Caribbean to fund educational development and exchange
programs; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Conyers, and
Mr. McDermott):
H.R. 177. A bill to provide that no funds made available to
the Department of the Treasury may be used to implement,
administer, or enforce regulations to require specific
licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to
educational activities in Cuba; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 178. A bill to reduce the spread of sexually
transmited infections in correctional facilities, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 179. A bill to confirm the jurisdiction of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission with respect to releasing
systems on residential window bars and to establish a
consumer product safety standard ensuring that all such bars
include a quick-release mechanism; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Financial
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 180. A bill to require the identification of companies
that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United
States Government contracts with such companies, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services, and
in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. LEE:
H.R. 181. A bill to provide for the issuance of a
semipostal to benefit the Peace Corps; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California:
H.R. 182. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to impose an excise tax on automobiles sold in the United
States that are not alternative fueled automobiles, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. MELANCON:
H.R. 183. A bill to authorize the project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico,
Louisiana; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. MELANCON (for himself, Mr. Baker, Mr. Boustany,
Mr. Alexander, Mr. Jindal, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr.
McCrery):
H.R. 184. A bill to extend for 1 year the availability of
supplemental social services block grant funding; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. MUSGRAVE:
H.R. 185. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide compensation for certain livestock losses; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
By Mrs. MUSGRAVE:
H.R. 186. A bill to authorize the construction of the
Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. OBERSTAR:
H.R. 187. A bill to designate the Federal building and
United States courthouse and customhouse located at 515 West
First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as the ``Gerald W. Heaney
Federal Building and United States Courthouse and
Customhouse''; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Mr. Sires):
H.R. 188. A bill to provide a new effective date for the
applicability of certain provisions of law to Public Law 105-
331; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Frelinghuysen, Mr. Holt, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and
Mr. Sires):
H.R. 189. A bill to establish the Paterson Great Falls
National Park in the State of New Jersey; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. Jones of North Carolina,
Mr. Wamp, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, and Mr. Duncan):
H.R. 190. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
prospectively that wages earned, and self-employment income
derived, by individuals who are not citizens or nationals of
the United States shall not be credited for coverage under
the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program
under such title, and to provide the President with authority
to enter into agreements with other nations taking into
account such limitation on crediting of wages and self-
employment income; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Cannon, and Mrs.
Jo Ann Davis of Virginia):
H.R. 191. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security
benefits; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
Fossella, Mr. Feeney, and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of
Virginia):
H.R. 192. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security
benefits; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. McCotter, and Mr. Miller
of Florida):
H.R. 193. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to make higher education more affordable by providing a full
tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on
student loans; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 194. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
with respect to the purchase of prescription drugs by
individuals who have attained retirement age, and to amend
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the
importation of prescription drugs and the sale of such drugs
through Internet sites; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. Jones of North Carolina,
and Mr. Culberson):
H.R. 195. A bill to provide greater health care freedom for
seniors; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself and Mr. Hulshof):
H.R. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to make permanent certain tax incentives for ethanol and
biodiesel used as a fuel, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, and Mr. Wamp):
H.R. 197. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a 5-year extension of the credit for electricity
produced from certain renewable resources; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. REGULA:
H.R. 198. A bill to provide for the retention of the name
of Mount McKinley; to the Committee on Natural Resources.

[[Page 334]]

By Mr. RENZI:
H.R. 199. A bill to designate segments of Fossil Creek, a
tributary to the Verde River in the State of Arizona, as wild
and scenic rivers; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. ROTHMAN:
H.R. 200. A bill to enable America's schools to use their
computer hardware to increase student achievement and prepare
students for the 21st century workplace, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. ROTHMAN:
H.R. 201. A bill to authorize 150,000 incremental vouchers
for tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 to help meet the housing
needs of low-income families; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. ROTHMAN:
H.R. 202. A bill to authorize the renewal of tenant-based
rental assistance vouchers under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. ROTHMAN:
H.R. 203. A bill to amend Federal crime grant programs
relating to domestic violence to encourage States and
localities to implement gun confiscation policies, reform
stalking laws, create integrated domestic violence courts,
and hire additional personnel for entering protection orders,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ROTHMAN:
H.R. 204. A bill to require the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a feasibility
study for applying airport bubbles as a method of
identifying, assessing, and reducing the adverse
environmental impacts of airport ground and flight operations
and improving the overall quality of the environment, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. SAXTON (for himself and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey):
H.R. 205. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to extend the annual enrollment periods of the
Medicare prescription drug benefit program and under the
Medicare Advantage program; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SERRANO (for himself, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Crowley,
and Mrs. Maloney of New York):
H.R. 206. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to
provide greater access to the food stamp program by reducing
duplicative and burdensome administrative requirements,
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to award grants to
certain community-based nonprofit feeding and anti-hunger
groups for the purpose of establishing and implementing a
Beyond the Soup Kitchen Pilot Program for certain socially
and economically disadvantaged populations, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 207. A bill to provide for identification of members
of the Armed Forces exposed during military service to
depleted uranium, to provide for health testing of such
members, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 208. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act to expand the fruit and vegetable pilot
program to 5 States, including New York, and to include Head
Start programs; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 209. A bill to authorize the appropriation of funds to
be used to recruit, hire, and train 100,000 new classroom
paraprofessionals in order to improve educational achievement
for children; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 210. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to waive the requirement for proof of citizenship during
first year of life for children born in the United States to
a Medicaid-eligible mother; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Ms. ESHOO (for herself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Upton, Mr.
Pickering, Mr. Terry, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Boucher,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Inslee, Mr.
Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Hooley, Mrs. Capps, Ms.
Solis, Mr. Towns, Mr. Ross, Mr. Radanovich, Mr.
Rogers of Michigan, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
DeFazio, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Boswell, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Larsen of Washington,
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Ms. Lee, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota,
Mr. Cooper, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Holden, Ms.
Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Michaud, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, and
Mr. Gerlach):
H.R. 211. A bill to facilitate nationwide availability of
2-1-1 telephone service for information and referral on
health and human services, including volunteer services, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 212. A bill to permit members of the House of
Representatives to donate used computer equipment to public
elementary and secondary schools designated by the members;
to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 213. A bill to provide discretionary authority to an
immigration judge to determine that an alien parent of a
United States citizen child should not be ordered removed
from the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SERRANO (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, and Mrs.
Maloney of New York):
H.R. 214. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Oak
Point and North Brother Island in the Bronx in the State of
New York as a unit of the National Park System; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 215. A bill to amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
and the egg, meat, and poultry inspection laws to ensure that
consumers receive notification regarding food products
produced from crops, livestock, or poultry raised on land on
which sewage sludge was applied; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 216. A bill to waive certain prohibitions with respect
to nationals of Cuba coming to the United States to play
organized professional baseball; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 217. A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in
addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and
Commerce, the Judiciary, Financial Services, Oversight and
Government Reform, and Agriculture, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.R. 218. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow taxpayers to designate income tax overpayments as
contributions to the United States Library Trust Fund; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr.
Chabot, and Mr. Mica):
H.R. 219. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust
funds by requiring the Managing Trustee to invest the annual
surplus of such trust funds in marketable interest-bearing
obligations of the United States and certificates of deposit
in depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, and to protect such trust funds from
the public debt limit; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, and
Mr. McCotter):
H.R. 220. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the
integrity and confidentiality of Social Security account
numbers issued under such title, to prohibit the
establishment in the Federal Government of any uniform
national identifying number, and to prohibit Federal agencies
from imposing standards for identification of individuals on
other agencies or persons; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. SIMPSON:
H.R. 221. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to
provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit
judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United

[[Page 335]]

States into two circuits, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SIMPSON:
H.R. 222. A bill to promote the economic development and
recreational use of National Forest System lands and other
public lands in central Idaho, to designate the Boulder-White
Cloud Management Area to ensure the continued management of
certain National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land
Management lands for recreational and grazing use and
conservation and resource protection, to add certain National
Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands in
central Idaho to the National Wilderness Preservation System,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mrs. Schmidt, and Mr.
Renzi):
H.R. 223. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to make grants to nonprofit tax-exempt
organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment to
provide free examinations to pregnant women needing such
services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 224. A bill to provide that no Federal funds may be
used for the design, renovation, construction, or rental of
any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in
the United States unless the President transmits to Congress
a certification that the United Nations has adopted
internationally-recognized best practices in contracting and
procurement; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Ms. Westmoreland, and Mrs.
Blackburn):
H.R. 225. A bill to withhold United States funding from the
United Nations Human Rights Council; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 226. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide a national standard in accordance with which
nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the
State; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 227. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a deduction for amounts paid for health insurance
and prescription drug costs of individuals; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 228. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exclude from gross income certain interest amounts
received by individuals; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 229. A bill to provide that no automatic pay
adjustment for Members of Congress shall be made in the year
following a fiscal year in which there is a Federal budget
deficit; to the Committee on House Administration, and in
addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 230. A bill to create a commission to develop a plan
for establishing a Museum of Ideas; to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on House
Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. Fortenberry, and Mr.
Smith of Nebraska):
H.R. 231. A bill to authorize an additional district
judgeship for the district of Nebraska; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 232. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
deny Federal retirement benefits to individuals convicted of
certain offenses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California:
H.R. 233. A bill to establish a grant and fee program
through the Environmental Protection Agency to encourage and
promote the recycling of used computers and to promote the
development of a national infrastructure for the recycling of
used computers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr.
DeFazio, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Farr, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs. Capps,
Mr. Lantos, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. George Miller of California, and
Ms. Matsui):
H.R. 234. A bill to make funds available for Pacific Salmon
emergency disaster assistance; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California:
H.R. 235. A bill to allow for the renegotiation of the
payment schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the
Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Ms.
Woolsey):
H.R. 236. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to create a Bureau of Reclamation partnership with the North
Bay Water Reuse Authority and other regional partners to
achieve objectives relating to water supply, water quality,
and environmental restoration; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Mr.
DeFazio):
H.R. 237. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
exempt airports in economically depressed communities from
matching grant obligations under the airport improvement
program; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. WAXMAN:
H.R. 238. A bill to repeal a prohibition on the use of
certain funds for tunneling in certain areas with respect to
the Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley Metro Rail project,
California; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico:
H.R. 239. A bill to increase the Federal minimum wage and
to provide an alternative minimum wage as an incentive to an
employer to provide health care and child care benefits; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr.
Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bishop of
Utah, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Camp of
Michigan, Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Cannon, Mr.
Cantor, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Carter, Mr. Chabot, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Conaway, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Culberson, Mrs.
Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mrs. Drake, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Goode, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Herger, Mr. Issa, Mr. King of Iowa,
Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Mack, Mr. Marchant, Mr. McHenry, Mrs
McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Mica, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Neugebauer,
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Pence, Mr. Petri, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Price of Georgia, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Rehberg, Mr.
Reichert, Mr. Royce, Mr. Sali, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Smith of Texas,
Mr. Stearns, Mr. Terry, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Westmoreland,
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Hall of
Texas, Mr. Akin, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Mr. Calvert, Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida,
Mr. Everett, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Fallin,
Mr. Flake, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Graves, Mr. Hastert, Mr.
Hoekstra, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Kingston, Mr. LaHood, Mr.
Lucas, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mrs.
Musgrave, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Tancredo,
Mr. Upton, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Mr. Shays, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Blunt,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Weller, Mr.
Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Cole of
Oklahoma, and Mr. Barton of Texas):
H.J. Res. 1. A joint resolution proposing a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.J. Res. 2. A joint resolution proposing an amendment the
Constitution of the United States regarding presidential
election voting rights for residents of all United States
territories and commonwealths; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution to acknowledge a long
history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies
by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and
offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the
United States; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to abolish the
electoral college and to provide for the direct popular
election of the President and Vice President of the United
States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.J. Res. 5. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relating to limitations
on the amounts of contributions and expenditures that may be
made in connection with campaigns for election to public
office; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. MILLER of Michigan:
H.J. Res. 6. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to provide that
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the number of
persons in each

[[Page 336]]

State who are citizens of the United States; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. MUSGRAVE:
H.J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H.J. Res. 8. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-
second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation
on the number of terms an individual may serve as President;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER:
H. Con. Res. 1. Concurrent resolution regarding consent to
assemble outside the seat of government; considered and
agreed to.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H. Con. Res. 2. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of the Congress that schools in the United States should
honor the contributions of individuals from the territories
of the United States by including such contributions in the
teaching of United States history; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H. Con. Res. 3. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of the Congress that the United States Postal Service should
issue commemorative postage stamps honoring Americans who
have distinguished themselves by their service in the armed
forces of the United States; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H. Con. Res. 4. Concurrent resolution urging increased
Federal funding for juvenile (Type 1) diabetes research; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. HOLT (for himself and Mr. Brown of South
Carolina):
H. Con. Res. 5. Concurrent resolution expressing support
for the designation and goals of ``Hire a Veteran Week'' and
encouraging the President to issue a proclamation supporting
those goals; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in
addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H. Con. Res. 6. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First
Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v.
Valeo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. LEE:
H. Con. Res. 7. Concurrent resolution calling on the League
of Arab States to acknowledge the genocide in the Darfur
region of Sudan and to step up their efforts to stop the
genocide in Darfur; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. LEE:
H. Con. Res. 8. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the United States Postal Service should
issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring victims of HIV/
AIDS and recognizing the struggle to prevent and treat HIV/
AIDS in the United States and throughout the world; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. Towns, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Jones
of Ohio, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Cummings,
Mr. McNulty, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Carson, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Holden, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Lantos, Mr.
Abercrombie, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Berman,
Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Payne, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin,
Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Weiner, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Castor, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Clarke,
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and
Mr. Cooper):
H. Con. Res. 9. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the United States Postal Service should
issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring former
Representative Shirley Chisholm, and that the Citizens' Stamp
Advisory Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General
that such a stamp be issued; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Ms. LEE:
H. Con. Res. 10. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of the Congress that the tax give away since 2001 to the
wealthiest 5 percent of Americans should be repealed and
those monies instead invested in vital programs to relieve
the growing burden on the working poor and to alleviate
poverty in America; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. SERRANO:
H. Con. Res. 11. Concurrent resolution entitled the
``English Plus Resolution''; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. Westmoreland):
H. Con. Res. 12. Concurrent resolution requiring the
display of the Ten Commandments in the United States Capitol;
to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. LARSON of Connecticut:
H. Res. 1. A resolution electing officers of the House of
Representatives; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. HOYER:
H. Res. 2. A resolution to inform the Senate that a quorum
of the House has assembled and of the election of the Speaker
and the Clerk; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. HOYER:
H. Res. 3. A resolution authorizing the Speaker to appoint
a committee to notify the President of the assembly of the
Congress; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. DINGELL:
H. Res. 4. A resolution authorizing the Clerk to inform the
President of the election of the Speaker and the Clerk;
considered and agreed to.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER:
H. Res. 5. A resolution providing for the consideration of
the resolution (H.Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. HOYER:
H. Res. 6. A resolution adopting the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. EMANUEL:
H. Res. 7. A resolution electing Members to certain
standing committees of the House of Representatives;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. PUTNAM:
H. Res. 8. A resolution electing Members to certain
standing committees of the House of Representatives;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. PUTNAM:
H. Res. 9. A resolution providing for the designation of
certain minority employees; considered and agreed to.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER:
H. Res. 10. A resolution fixing the daily hour of meeting
of the First Session of the One Hundred Tenth Congress;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. HOYER:
H. Res. 11. A resolution expressing profound sorrow on the
occasion of the death of the Honorable Gerald R. Ford,
thirty-eighth President of the United States of America;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Udall of
New Mexico, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Welch of
Vermont, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Udall of
Colorado):
H. Res. 12. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration
with other international allies, should establish an energy
project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency
that was incorporated in the ``Man on the Moon'' project
address the inevitable challenges of ``Peak Oil''; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. BIGGERT:
H. Res. 13. A resolution encouraging increased public
awareness of eating disorders and expanded research for
treatment and cures; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CONAWAY (for himself and Mr. Blunt):
H. Res. 14. A resolution amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to curtail the growth of Government programs;
to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. EHLERS (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, Mr.
Boehner, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Upton, Mr. Camp of Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra,
Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr.
Rogers of Michigan, Mr. McCotter, Mrs. Miller of
Michigan, and Mr. Walberg):
H. Res. 15. A resolution mourning the passing of President
Gerald Rudolph Ford and celebrating his leadership and
service to the people of the United States; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H. Res. 16. A resolution recognizing Virginia's James River
as ``America's Founding River''; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H. Res. 17. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that there should be established a
National Inflamatory Skin Disease Awareness Month; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Feeney,
and Mr. Deal of Georgia):
H. Res. 18. A resolution expressing disapproval by the
House of Representatives of the totalization agreement
between the United States and Mexico signed by the
Commissioner of Social Security and the Director General of
the Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H. Res. 19. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives concerning health promotion and disease
prevention; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

[[Page 337]]

By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H. Res. 20. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the United States Postal Service
should issue a postage stamp commemorating Juan Nepomuceno
Seguin; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. JINDAL:
H. Res. 21. A resolution to honor and recognize the
achievements of Craig Webre for his 15 years of dedicated
service as Sheriff of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KING of Iowa:
H. Res. 22. A resolution expressing the disapproval of the
House of Representatives of the Social Security totalization
agreement between the United States and Mexico; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. LEE:
H. Res. 23. A resolution disavowing the doctrine of
preemption; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. PRICE of North Carolina (for himself, Mr.
Dreier, Ms. Schwartz, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Holt, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Boozman, Mr.
Reyes, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Blumenauer,
Mr. Lantos, Ms. Watson, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Ackerman,
Mr. Honda, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Wilson
of South Carolina, Mr. Payne, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma,
Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Pomeroy, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr. Davis of Alabama):
H. Res. 24. A resolution establishing the House Democracy
Assistance Commission for the One Hundred Tenth Congress; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. ROTHMAN (for himself and Mr. Ramstad):
H. Res. 25. A resolution calling on the Board of Directors
of the National High School Mock Trial Championship to
accommodate students of all religious faiths; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. SIMPSON:
H. Res. 26. A resolution commending the Boise State
University Broncos football team for winning the 2007 Fiesta
Bowl and completing an undefeated season; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. SPRATT:
H. Res. 27. A resolution to institute a Pay-As-You-Go rule
in the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress; to
the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on
the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SPRATT:
H. Res. 28. A resolution to institute a reconciliation rule
in the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress; to
the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on
the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

[Filed on January 5, 2007]

By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. McKeon,
Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida, Mr. Chabot, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. King of
Iowa, and Mrs. Drake):
H.R. 241. A bill to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and
choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect
to medical care for their employees; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. WELLER:
H.R. 242. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to
provide each American child with a KidSave Account, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WELLER:
H.R. 243. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide for the payment of Combat-Related Special
Compensation to members of the Armed Forces retired for
disability with less than 20 years of active military service
who were awarded the Purple Heart; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. WELLER:
H.R. 244. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a credit against income for certain education and
training expenses, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WELLER:
H.R. 245. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to treat certain amounts paid for exercise equipment and
physical fitness programs as amounts paid for medical care;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. REICHERT:
H.R. 246. A bill to conduct a study evaluating whether
there are correlations between the commission of
methamphetamine crimes and identity theft crimes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms.
Hooley, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Walden of Oregon):
H.R. 247. A bill to designate a Forest Service trail at
Waldo Lake in the Willamette National Forest in the State of
Oregon as a national recreation trail in honor of Jim Weaver,
a former Member of the House of Representatives; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. Goode, Mr. Shays, and
Mrs. Drake):
H.R. 248. A bill to direct the Federal Trade Commission to
revise the regulations regarding the Do-not-call registry to
prohibit politically-oriented recorded message telephone
calls to telephone numbers listed on that registry; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. RAHALL (for himself and Mr. Whitfield):
H.R. 249. A bill to restore the prohibition on the
commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and
burros; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. EHLERS (for himself and Mr. Gilchrest):
H.R. 250. A bill to provide for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the
Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ENGEL (for himself and Mr. Barton of Texas):
H.R. 251. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
prohibit manipulation of caller identification information,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 252. A bill to create a separate DNA database for
violent predators against children, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 253. A bill to increase the evidentiary standard
required to convict a person for a drug offense, to require
screening of law enforcement officers or others acting under
color of law participating in drug task forces, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 254. A bill to enhance Federal enforcement of hate
crimes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 255. A bill to establish an interagency committee to
coordinate Federal manufacturing research and development
efforts in manufacturing, strengthen existing programs to
assist manufacturing innovation and education, and expand
outreach programs for small and medium-sized manufacturers,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 256. A bill to prevent children's access to firearms;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 257. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to require hospitals reimbursed under the
Medicare system to establish and implement security
procedures to reduce the likelihood of infant patient
abduction and baby switching, including procedures for
identifying all infant patients in the hospital in a manner
that ensures that it will be evident if infants are missing
from the hospital; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 258. A bill to provide for the collection of data on
traffic stops; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 259. A bill to provide for the establishment of a task
force within the Bureau of Justice Statistics to gather
information about, study, and report to the Congress
regarding, incidents of abandonment of infant children; to
the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 260. A bill to establish marine and freshwater
research, development, and demonstration programs to support
efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species,
as well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore
ecosystems; to the Committee on Science and Technology, and
in addition to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Natural Resources, and House Administration,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 261. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide an alternate release date for certain nonviolent
offenders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 262. A bill to require the Secretary of Education to
conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on methods
for identifying and treating children with dyslexia in
kindergarten through third grade; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.

[[Page 338]]

By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 263. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish a program to award grants to
institutions of higher education for the establishment or
expansion of cybersecurity professional development programs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Science and
Technology, and in addition to the Committees on Education
and Labor, and Homeland Security, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 264. A bill to prevent the President from encroaching
upon the Congressional prerogative to make laws, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 265. A bill to provide for the establishment of an
independent, Presidentially-appointed Commission to assess
the circumstances related to the damage caused by Hurricane
Katrina on or between Friday, August 26, 2005, and Tuesday,
August 30, 2005; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 266. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously
award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to the seven
members of the crew of the space shuttle Columbia in
recognition of their outstanding and enduring contributions
to the Nation; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 267. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to
repeal the restriction on the jurisdiction of courts,
justices, and judges to hear or consider applications for
writs of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of certain
aliens detained by the United States; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 268. A bill to amend the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to clarify the roles
and responsibilities of the agencies and actors responsible
for the administration of such compensation program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BOREN (for himself, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Skelton,
and Mr. Taylor):
H.R. 269. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the unauthorized
use of names and images of members of the Armed Forces; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Wolf):
H.R. 270. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2008 through 2010 for the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the
Committees on the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida:
H.R. 271. A bill to amend the Missing Children's Assistance
Act to extend the applicability of such Act to individuals
determined to have a mental capacity of less than 18 years of
age; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. CAMP of Michigan:
H.R. 272. A bill to require amounts remaining in Members'
representational allowances at the end of a fiscal year to be
used for deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. CAMP of Michigan (for himself and Mr. Oberstar):
H.R. 273. A bill to repeal the sunset of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect
to the expansion of the adoption credit and adoption
assistance programs; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 274. A bill to impose certain limitations on the
receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Wolf):
H.R. 275. A bill to promote freedom of expression on the
Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion
to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign
governments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mrs. CAPPS:
H.R. 276. A bill to designate the Piedras Blancas Light
Station and the surrounding public land as an Outstanding
Natural Area to be administered as a part of the National
Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. CLEAVER:
H.R. 277. A bill to prohibit the use of amounts in a
Members' Representational Allowance to provide any vehicle
which does not use alternative fuels; to the Committee on
House Administration.
By Mrs. CUBIN (for herself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Boucher,
Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Allen, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, Mr. Kind, Mr. King of Iowa,
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Boswell, and Mr.
McIntyre):
H.R. 278. A bill to amend section 254 of the Communications
Act of 1934 to provide that funds received as universal
service contributions and the universal service support
programs established pursuant to that section are not subject
to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code,
commonly known as the Antideficiency Act; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. CUBIN:
H.R. 279. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to provide for Congressional oversight and approval of
totalization agreements; to the Committee on Ways and Means,
and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
H.R. 280. A bill to establish a pilot program to encourage
certification of teachers in low-income, low-performing
public elementary and secondary schools by the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mrs. Jones of
Ohio, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Schiff, Mrs.
Capps, Ms. Hooley, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. McDermott):
H.R. 281. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002
to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail in Federal
elections; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
H.R. 282. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act,
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that group and
individual health insurance coverage and group health plans
provide coverage for second opinions; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
H.R. 283. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act,
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that group and
individual health insurance coverage and group health plans
permit enrollees direct access to services of obstetrical and
gynecological physician services directly and without a
referral; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, and Ways
and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky:
H.R. 284. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide for the issuance of a prisoner-of-war medal to
civilian employees of the Federal Government who, during war
or under wartime conditions, are taken captive by armed
forces or agents of a foreign government hostile to the
United States; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. DOYLE:
H.R. 285. A bill to establish the Steel Industry National
Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania; to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H.R. 286. A bill to amend the Metric Conversion Act of 1975
to require Federal agencies to impose certain requirements on
recipients of awards for scientific and engineering research;
to the Committee on Science and Technology.
By Mrs. EMERSON:
H.R. 287. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a refundable credit to certain senior citizens for
premiums paid for coverage under Medicare Part B; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. EMERSON:
H.R. 288. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to provide for an improved benefit computation formula
for workers affected by the changes in benefit computation
rules enacted in the Social Security Amendments of 1977 who
attain age 65 during the 10-year period after 1981 and before
1992 (and related beneficiaries) and to provide prospectively
for increases in their benefits accordingly; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 289. A bill to protect the religious freedom of
providers of adoption or foster care services; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.

[[Page 339]]

By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 290. A bill to prevent ineligibility for supplemental
security income benefits by reason of an increase in the
Federal minimum wage; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. GILLMOR:
H.R. 291. A bill to establish a National Sex Offender Risk
Classification Task Force to create guidelines for the
establishment of a risk-based sex offender classification
system for use in sex offender registries; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. Walsh of New York, Mr.
Blumenauer, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Farr, Ms. Hooley, Mrs.
Jones of Ohio, Mr. Kind, Mr. LaTourette, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Serrano, Ms.
Woolsey, and Mr. Conyers):
H.R. 292. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 to reform funding for the Seniors
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Agriculture.
By Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Farr, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Kind, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Marshall, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Woolsey,
and Mr. Conyers):
H.R. 293. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to provide financial assistance for the construction,
improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. KILDEE:
H.R. 294. A bill to prohibit the entry into any bilateral
or regional trade agreement, and to prohibit negotiations to
enter into any such agreement, for a period of 2 years; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr.
Tancredo, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. Perlmutter):
H.R. 295. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in the
Pikes Peak region of Colorado; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. MATSUI:
H.R. 296. A bill to specify that the 100 most populous
urban areas of the United States, as determined by the
Secretary of Homeland Security, shall be eligible for grants
under the Urban Area Security Initiative of the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Homeland Security.
By Mrs. McCARTHY of New York (for herself and Mr.
Dingell):
H.R. 297. A bill to improve the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. McCARTHY of New York:
H.R. 298. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow amounts in a health flexible spending arrangement
that are unused during a plan year to be carried over to the
next plan year; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. MEEHAN:
H.R. 299. A bill to adjust the boundary of Lowell National
Historical Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. Poe, and Mr. Jones of
North Carolina):
H.R. 300. A bill to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal
courts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 301. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002
to establish standards for the distribution of voter
registration application forms, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 302. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002
to prohibit a State receiving payments under such Act from
using the payments for public communications which promote or
oppose a candidate for public office or political party; to
the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 303. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
permit certain additional retired members of the Armed Forces
who have a service-connected disability to receive both
disability compensation from the Department of Veterans
Affairs for their disability and either retired pay by reason
of their years of military service or Combat-Related Special
Compensation and to eliminate the phase-in period under
current law with respect to such concurrent receipt; to the
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Sessions, and Mr. Doolittle):
H.R. 304. A bill to establish guidelines and incentives for
States to establish criminal drug dealer registries and to
require the Attorney General to establish a national criminal
drug dealer registry and notification program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 305. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland
Security from paroling into the United States an alien who
falls ill while seeking admission at a port of entry or seeks
emergency medical assistance by approaching an agent or
official of the Department of Homeland Security at or near a
border; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 306. A bill to provide for an initial period of
admission of 36 months for aliens employed as dairy workers;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 307. A bill to impose limitations on the authority of
the Secretary of the Interior to claim title or other rights
to water absent specific direction of law or to abrogate,
injure, or otherwise impair any right to the use of any
quantity of water; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 308. A bill to clarify congressional intent with
respect to the nature of rights-of-way granted and accepted
under former section 2477 of the Revised Statutes, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 309. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a demonstration program to facilitate landscape
restoration programs within certain units of the National
Park System established by law to preserve and interpret
resources associated with American history, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 310. A bill to amend the National Park Service
Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998, to extend to
additional small businesses the preferential right to renew a
concessions contract entered into under such Act, to
facilitate the renewal of a commercial use authorization
granted under such Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 311. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
increase the maximum age for the original appointment of a
retired member of the Armed Forces to a border patrol agent
position, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. Norwood, and Ms.
Bordallo):
H.R. 312. A bill to authorize the presentation of flags at
the funerals of civilian Federal employees engaged in the
support of military operations who have died in combat zones
in the course of their duties; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 313. A bill to promote greater access to air
transportation for all persons; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 314. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code,
relating to the assurance required of owners and operators of
airports with respect to long-term leases for construction of
hangars; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Hinojosa, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Simpson, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Hoekstra, and Mr. Boucher):
H.R. 315. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into
contracts with community health care providers to improve
access to health care for veterans in highly rural areas, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 316. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey to the village of Santa Clara, the city of Bayard, or
the county of Grant, in the State of New Mexico, in tracts of
not less than 40 acres, at market price at its present state
of use as agricultural grazing lands as determined by the
Secretary, for business and community development, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, and in
addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
H.R. 317. A bill to authorize the construction of the
Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Etheridge, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Grijalva,
and Mr. Pallone):
H.R. 318. A bill to amend the Impact Aid program under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve the
distribution of school construction payments to better meet
the needs of military and Indian land school districts; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.

[[Page 340]]

By Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mr. Cantor, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis
of Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mrs. Capito,
Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Platts, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, and Mr. McCrery):
H.R. 319. A bill to establish the Journey Through Hallowed
Ground National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mrs. EMERSON:
H.J. Res. 9. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States authorizing the
Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of
the flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties
for that act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. EMERSON:
H.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the
United States Government and for greater accountability in
the enactment of tax legislation; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mrs. EMERSON:
H.J. Res. 11. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary
school prayer; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. EMERSON:
H. Con. Res. 13. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress regarding the need to prevent the closure or
consolidation of post offices; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Con. Res. 14. Concurrent resolution expressing that
Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Con. Res. 15. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant
blanket amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or
wounded members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Con. Res. 16. Concurrent resolution congratulating Prime
Minister Portia Simpson-Miller for becoming the first
democratically-elected female Prime Minister of Jamaica and
the first female Jamaican head of state; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Con. Res. 17. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the people of the United States should
grieve for the loss of life that defined the Third Reich and
celebrate the continued education efforts for tolerance and
justice, reaffirming the commitment of the United States to
the fight against intolerance and prejudice in any form, and
honoring the legacy of transparent procedure, government
accountability, the rule of law, the pursuit of justice, and
the struggle for universal freedom and human rights; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Con. Res. 18. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be
issued in honor of George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Ms. McCollum
of Minnesota, Mr. Keller, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Boswell,
Mr. Hinojosa, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr.
McCotter):
H. Res. 29. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of
National Mentoring Month 2007; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Res. 30. A resolution recognizing the historic steps
India and Pakistan have taken toward achieving bilateral
peace; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Res. 31. A resolution recognizing the Honorable Andrew
L. Jefferson, Jr., on the occasion of the establishment of an
endowment for trial advocacy called the ``Andrew L. Jefferson
Endowment for Trial Advocacy'' at Texas Southern University's
Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, Texas; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Res. 32. A resolution denouncing the practices of female
genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings,
acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based
persecutions and expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that participation, protection, recognition,
and independence of women is crucial to achieving a just,
moral, and honorable society; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
By Mr. GILLMOR:
H. Res. 33. A resolution recognizing the thousands of
Freemasons in every State in the Nation and honoring them for
their many contributions to the Nation throughout its
history; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H. Res. 34. A resolution recognizing the 75th birthday of
Desmond Mpilo Tutu, South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape
Town, and Nobel Peace Prize recipient; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. OBEY:
H. Res. 35. A resolution to enhance intelligence oversight
authority; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. LANTOS (for himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
H. Res. 36. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the United States should declare its
support for the independence of Kosova; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. SOLIS:
H. Res. 37. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that all workers deserve fair treatment
and safe working conditions, and honoring Dolores Huerta for
her commitment to the improvement of working conditions for
farm worker families and the rights of women and children; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.

____________________

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

(Filed on January 4, 2007)

Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mr. KING of New York introduced a bill (H.R. 240) for the
relief of Alemeseghed Mussie Tesfamical; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Filed on January 5, 2007)

Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Ms. LEE introduced a bill (H.R. 320) for the relief of
Geert Botzen; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

[[Page 341]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARY TAX REDUCTION ACT AND THE
SENIOR CITIZENS' TAX ELIMINATION ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces
of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the
Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax
increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social
Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden
imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing
any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is
why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens' Tax Elimination Act,
which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing
these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore,
``taxing'' benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting
trick, a shell game which allows Members of Congress to reduce benefits
by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social
Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs,
and masks the true size of the federal deficit.
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress
should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending
the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. This is why
I am also introducing the Social Security Preservation Act, which
ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent
solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress' inability to
control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust
fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the
government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the
American people that the money will be there for them when they retire.
Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free
senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior
Citizens' Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax
Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the
Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits
and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO WALTER THEOPHILUS LUNSFORD, SR.

______

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great
man and outstanding citizen who passed away on December 28, 2006.
Walter Theophilus Lunsford, Sr. passed away at the age of 90 years
old in Columbus, Ga., the city where he was born, raised, and spent
much of his life making an impact as a businessman, family man and
positive contributor to the community.
Success came early in Mr. Lunsford's life and he never let it go.
After graduating as valedictorian from Spencer High School in 1933, he
furthered his academic pursuits at Fisk University where as a physics
major, he pledged Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity. Later, he became a
charter member of the Eta Theta Chapter at Columbus State University,
as well as the Columbus Alumni Chapter.
Mr. Lunsford first developed his business acumen by working in the
family grocery store. He learned entrepreneurship first-hand as his
parents expanded their business into real-estate, building houses at a
time when public housing did not exist. He later built on that
knowledge at the University of Chicago, studying business
administration and international relations.
In the early 1940's, Mr. Lunsford carried his initial business
experience into his own ventures, first as the sole owner and
proprietor of Fox Deluxe Wholesale Beer Distributing Company and later,
as the first black owner of a Georgia taxicab company. At the peak of
its operation, he employed over 100 blacks between the Checker, Blue
Bird and Red Bird Taxicab Companies. Since much of his clientele was
comprised of black soldiers stationed at Fort Benning, his business
filled both a social and economic void for members of the local
community.
Mr. Lunsford did not stop there--as an off-shoot to his taxicab
business, he opened a Shell Service Station. Eventually, he closed his
taxi business and opened a full auto station and grocery store, a
forerunner to the modem convenience store. Along the way, he found a
way to integrate his love of entertainment by opening the Pierce
Amusement Company, leasing coin-operated vending and game machines to
other establishments.
Above all, Mr. Walter Lunsford was a successful, well-respected
entrepreneur who placed God and family first. For 62 years, he
accomplished it all with his wife, Sally Bryant Lunsford, at his side.
Together they raised their ten college-educated children, an
accomplishment in itself.
Today, we thank and honor Mr. Lunsford, not only for his
contributions to Columbus, but also for the example he set for others.
He will be remembered as an inspirational figure to not only those in
Columbus, but to all who have the opportunity to learn about his life.

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE TO HAROLD LEE MEYER

______

HON. JON C. PORTER

of nevada

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Harold
Lee Meyer who passed away on December 14, 2006.
Born in Paullina, Iowa on January 1, 1927, Harold settled in
Littleton, Colorado with his wife of 55 years, Natalie Meyer. After
spending his career in the savings and loan industry, Harold used his
retirement to give back to his community. Harold was active in both
local and state pursuits, having served as a member of the Denver
General Hospital Board and as director of Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
of the West. As a member of the Littleton City Council and as mayor of
the City of Littleton, Harold enriched and improved countless lives.
His other philanthropic pursuits included being a member of DRCOG, a
volunteer at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, a driver for the
Red Cross, and being an active member of the Bethlehem Lutheran Church
community.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor the life and legacy of Harold Lee
Meyer. His professional success and dedication to community should
serve as an example to us all. Harold dedicated his life to enriching
the lives of those around him. I applaud all his efforts; he was truly
a distinguished humanitarian and will be profoundly missed.

____________________

MONTGOMERY GI BILL

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address an
inequity facing America's men and women in uniform who seek an
education in return for their military service.
For years, the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) has allowed thousands of men
and women in uniform attend college or to receive vocational training
to prepare for a new career after the military.
It is an excellent program and one we must preserve.
However, Madam Speaker, I would like to remedy an inequity that
exists in this program with legislation I am introducing today.

[[Page 342]]

To receive the benefits of the Montgomery GI Bill, our service
members must pay into the program at the beginning of their military
service.
One hundred dollars is deducted each month from their military pay
for the first 12 months.
With the legislation I offer today, our service members would still
make the initial contribution. However, this contribution would no
longer count against them later on when they apply for federal student
aid.
In many cases, Madam Speaker, the Montgomery GI Bill alone does not
cover the cost for college or job training. Our service members must
also apply for federal student aid to cover tuition and other expenses.
The Department of Education considers their benefits from the
Montgomery GI Bill as ``income''-- thereby reducing the amount they are
eligible to receive from federal student aid programs.
This legislation goes back to the $1,200 out-of-pocket contribution
that a service member made to become eligible for the Montgomery GI
Bill.
It is not fair to ask our service members to pay the original amount
out of their own pocket and then penalize them for it later on.
This bill would simply exempt the original contribution that came
from their own pocket from the Department of Education's income
consideration.
This legislation does not present significant cost to the federal
government but would go a long way to help America's individual service
members afford college.
During the last Congress, I offered the provisions contained in this
legislation as part of the College Access and Opportunity Act (H.R.
609) when it was on the House floor.
Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted, but I plan to pursue
the issue until we correct this inequity.
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to offer legislation
benefiting America's military service members and helping them to
attend college or receive job training.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE ANIMAL PROHIBITION ACT OF 2007

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Speaker, today I reintroduce the Animal Fighting
Prohibition Act to address the brutal, inhumane practice of animal
fighting, something I have been trying to federally criminalize for the
past several Congresses.
A few years ago, Congress enacted legislation to tighten federal law
and close some loopholes that were allowing the barbaric practices of
animal fighting to thrive nationwide, in spite of bans in virtually
every state.
But Congress didn't finish the job. We left in place weak penalties
that have proven ineffective. Misdemeanor penalties simply don't
provide a meaningful deterrent. Those involved in animal fighting
ventures--where thousands of dollars typically change hands in the
associated gambling activity--consider misdemeanor penalties a ``slap
on the wrist'' or merely a ``cost of doing business.'' Moreover, we've
heard from U.S. Attorneys that they are reluctant to pursue animal
fighting cases with just a misdemeanor penalty.
In recent years, we've seen a marked rise in the frequency of animal
fighting busts in communities across the country. Local police and
sheriffs are increasingly concerned about animal fighting, not only
because of the animal cruelty involved, but also because of the other
crimes that often go hand-in-hand, including illegal gambling, drug
trafficking, and acts of human violence. Furthermore, there is an
inherent danger for the children of animal fighters to be close to
these animals.
There is the additional concern that cockfighters spread diseases
that jeopardize poultry flocks and even public health. We in California
experienced this first-hand, when cockfighters spread exotic Newcastle
disease, which was so devastating to many of our poultry producers in
2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers ``nearly $200 million
to eradicate, and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in
lost export markets,'' according to former Agriculture Secretary Ann
Veneman. Cockfighting has been identified as the major contributor of
the spread of avian flu throughout Thailand and other parts of Asia,
where the strain originated. Many of the humans who contracted avian
flu and died from it contracted it from fighting birds. Experts say
it's just a matter of time before it reaches our shores.
It is time Congress finishes the job and helps state and local law
enforcement officials who have requested a strengthening of federal
laws to rid animal fighting from communities that do not want it.
This legislation makes violations of federal animal fighting law a
felony punishable by up to three years in prison, makes it a felony to
transport an animal across state or international borders for the
purpose of animal fighting, and prohibits the interstate and foreign
commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting.
In the past, this legislation has been endorsed by nearly 400 law
enforcement organizations, 110 animal control and humane organizations,
and a number of industry organizations as well, and I expect to have
their support again. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Act of 2006 had
324 cosponsors and was passed through the Senate by unanimous consent.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation so we can end the
deplorable practice of animal fighting and all of the destructive
behavior associated with it.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE SENIORS' HEALTH CARE FREEDOM ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Seniors' Health Care
Freedom Act. This act protects seniors' fundamental right to make their
own health care decisions by repeal federal laws that interfere with
seniors' ability to form private contracts for medical services. This
bill also repeals laws which force seniors into the Medicare program
against their will. When Medicare was first established, seniors were
promised that the program would be voluntary. In fact, the original
Medicare legislation explicitly protected a senior's right to seek out
other forms of medical insurance. However, the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 prohibits any physician who forms a private contract with a senior
from filing any Medicare reimbursement claims for two years. As a
practical matter, this means that seniors cannot form private contracts
for health care services.
Seniors may wish to use their own resources to pay for procedures or
treatments not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid the bureaucracy
and uncertainly that comes when seniors must wait for the judgment of a
Center from Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bureaucrat before
finding out if a desired treatment is covered.
Seniors' right to control their own health care is also being denied
due to the Social Security Administration's refusal to give seniors who
object to enrolling Medicare Part A Social Security benefits. This not
only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system; it
also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay
taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and
are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they
retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these
benefits unless they agree to join an additional government program!
At a time when the fiscal solvency of Medicare is questionable, to
say the least, it seems foolish to waste scarce Medicare funds on those
who would prefer to do without Medicare. Allowing seniors who neither
want nor need to participate in the program to refrain from doing so
will also strengthen the Medicare program for those seniors who do wish
to participate in it. Of course, my bill does not take away Medicare
benefits from any senior. It simply allows each senior to choose
voluntarily whether or not to accept Medicare benefits or to use his
own resources to obtain health care.
Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their
ability to seek medical care free from government interference
infringes on the freedom of seniors to control their own resources and
make their own health care decisions. A woman who was forced into
Medicare against her wishes summed it up best in a letter to my office,

``. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer
without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.'' I urge my
colleagues to protect the right of seniors to make the medical
arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the
Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act.

[[Page 343]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MAYOR BOB POYDASHEFF

______

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today I have the distinct
privilege of recognizing a man of remarkable vision and unyielding
commitment to the community, which he has so faithfully served. Through
the leadership of Mayor Bob Poydasheff, the city of Columbus has
experienced extraordinary growth and prosperity. During his tenure as
mayor, the area has gained in excess of 7,000 new jobs and under his
leadership the Columbus Consolidated Government has exercised fiscal
responsibility resulting in balanced budgets and a surplus.
Bob Poydasheff has always exhibited exceptional character throughout
his professional careers. He served in the U.S. Army for twenty four
years and retired at the rank of Colonel. During his military career,
Mayor Poydasheff served as Legislative Counsel to Secretary of the Army
Howard (Bo) Calloway, Staff Judge Advocate at Ft. Belvoir, VA, Legal
Counsel to Secretary of the Army and Secretary of Defense on Labor
Relations (1955-1979). In recognition of his exemplary service to our
country he has received the Vietnam Ribbon, Legion of Merit,
Commendation Medal, and 2 Oak Leaf Clusters.
Mayor Poydasheff's determination to excel is apparent in virtually
every aspect of his life--and in none, more evident than in his pursuit
of education. After receiving a B.A. in Political Science from the
Citadel in 1954, he went on to earn his Juris Doctorate from Tulane
University. Mayor Poydasheff later received a M.A. in International
Relations from Boston College. He has also attended The Academy of
International Law and the Army War College.
Perhaps, his greatest accomplishment is the bond that he unwaveringly
nurtures with his family. Mr. Bob Poydasheff and his wife, Stacy, are
enjoying a wonderful and fulfilling marriage of 42 years. Of this
union, they were blessed with two children, through whom they have two
lovely grandchildren.
His affiliation with many civic organizations outside of the
political arena demonstrates the genuineness of his nature. These
organizations include: Chattahoochee Valley Citadel Club (President);
Chattahoochee Boy Scout Council (Past President); Association of U.S.
Army (Past President); Anne Elizabeth Shepherd Home (Past President);
Fort Benning Sojourners (Past President); Board of Directors American
Red Cross (Past Chairman); Military Affairs Committee, Columbus Chamber
of Commerce (Past Chairman); Civilian-Military Council (Past Chairman);
Military Order of World Wars (Past Commander); Minority Business
Development Council; Black History Month Steering Committee; Urban
League (Director); Columbus Lawyer's Club; Georgia Council of the
Humanities; Kiwanis Club of Columbus; Leadership Columbus Alumni;
Shriner; Scottish Rite; and Masons.
Today, we thank and honor Mayor Bob Poydasheff for his selfless
dedication and steadfast commitment to the welfare of others and his
community. His commendable service to the citizens of Columbus serves
as an attribute which we should all strive to emulate as we attempt to
make the world a better place to live for humankind. As he leaves the
Mayor's office we extend our best wishes for joy and happiness in the
weeks, months and years ahead.

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE TO TOM STONE

______

HON. JON C. PORTER

of nevada

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Tom Stone for his
many years as a dedicated public servant.
For the past eight years Tom has represented the citizens of Eagle
County, Colorado as County Commissioner. Tom has proved to be a
champion for the environment through his appointments to the Colorado
River Water Conservation District, the Wildland Urban Interface Fire
Committee, the National Association of Counties Public Lands Steering
Committee, the Colorado State Forest Advisory Board, and Colorado
Counties, Inc. Committees for Public Lands, Agriculture & Wildlife, and
Land Use & Natural Resources. Most notably, Commissioner Stone created
and implemented the Eagle County Youth Conservation Corps, a program of
education, funding and service projects in our National Forests by
Eagle County youth.
Tom worked tirelessly to develop the infrastructure necessary for the
future health, safety, welfare, economy, housing and care of the
citizens of Eagle County. Tom created the first of its kind public/
private partnership to construct 282 affordable homes for the local
workforce at Miller Ranch. He also spearheaded the building of a joint
Veterans and Emergency Service Personnel Memorial on the banks of the
pond to honor those who have given the greatest measure of devotion to
their community and their country.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Eagle County Commissioner Tom
Stone. His amalgamation of professional success and community activism
is exemplary. I applaud his efforts and wish him the best in his future
endeavors.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2007. This legislation would take
the long-overdue step of prohibiting chief state election officials
from taking part in the political campaigns of federal candidates in
elections over which the officials have supervisory authority.
As a former President of the League of Women Voters in San Diego and
an American voter myself, I know that election officials are entrusted
with a crucial responsibility for our democracy. Their only allegiance
must be to the will of-the voters, not to partisan political agendas.
I think we can all agree that an inherent conflict of interest exists
when a state's chief election official is responsible for monitoring
and certifying the results of a federal election while actively
participating in the campaign of one of the candidates in that
election.
In the last several years, multiple Secretaries of State have
captured national attention and incited great controversy because of
their political involvement in elections they were responsible for
overseeing.
Although such individuals may be honorable public servants with no
improper intentions, it is of the utmost importance for the integrity
of our democracy that we provide legal safeguards to ensure the public
trust is never violated.
This is not a partisan issue. The record shows that officials of both
parties have in the past held these two types of positions
simultaneously. Rather, this is an issue of preserving the American
people's faith in the integrity of our democracy.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this important
legislation to protect the public's trust in the electoral process.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND IDENTITY THEFT LEGISLATION

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Speaker, today I introduced six bills that focus
on the problems of illegal immigration and identity theft.
The first priority for this new Congress and any Congress, for that
matter, should be to reduce the high levels of illegal immigrants
entering this nation. This is a problem that goes directly to our
responsibilities as a sovereign nation to secure our borders and
enforce our laws.
Two of my bills address the crux of the illegal immigration problem
in the United States. We know that most illegal immigrants come here
looking for work. If we stop illegal workers from gaining employment,
they would be less likely to enter our country illegally in the first
place
To get a job, a person must provide his employer with a social
security number. In many cases, an illegal immigrant simply provides a
name and a fictitious social security number. Too often, an illegal
immigrant has adopted the identity of a hard working American who is
unaware that his identity has been stolen until he is refused a loan or
contacted by an irate creditor.
The federal government currently has the capability to deter identity
theft. Every year, employers have to file W-2 forms with the Social
Security Administration that include the names, social security numbers
and addresses of their workers.
Today, when the Social Security Administration receives multiple W-2
forms with the

[[Page 344]]

same social security number and different names and/or addresses, it
simply ignores it, even when it is obvious that more than one person is
using a Social Security number!
In other cases, when an employer files a W-2 with a name and Social
Security number that does not match, the government simply mails the
worker a letter explaining the discrepancy. That's it. The Social
Security Administration does little to no follow-up. This has led to
many discrepancies that the Social Security Administration has yet to
resolve. In fact, a GAO report found that as of November 2004, there
were 246 million unresolved discrepancies--involving $463 billion--
dating back to 1937, the beginning of the Social Security program.
My legislation would change that.
The Employment Eligibility Verification and Anti-Identity Theft Act
would require workers to resolve discrepancies if their names and
Social Security numbers do not match. Employers would have to terminate
workers who do not resolve discrepancies. The Social Security
Administration would also be required to notify the Department of
Homeland Security so it can investigate whether a crime has been
committed.
The Identity Theft Notification Act of 2007 would require the Social
Security Administration to investigate if it receives more than eight
(8) separate W -2 forms with the same Social Security number if the
number corresponds with four (4) different addresses in a single year.
If the Social Security Administration finds evidence of fraudulent
activity, it is required to notify not only the Department of Homeland
Security, but also the legal possessor of that Social Security number.
This will enable innocent people to take steps to protect their credit,
identity, and good name.
Although jobs are the primary magnets that bring illegal immigrants
to this country, I have also introduced another bill that will remove a
major incentive for people to come to this country illegally.
The Citizenship Reform Act of 2007 would simply bring our laws into
line with virtually every other nation on earth by requiring that at
least one parent be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a
child to become automatically a citizen.
Additionally, I have also introduced a bill that will make our
current immigration law more fair. Under current law, an illegal
immigrant who leaves the country faces a bar of up to three years if he
has been in the country illegally for more than 6 months, and a ten
year bar if he has been here illegally for more than a year. However,
if an illegal immigrant never leaves the country but applies to adjust
his status, he faces no reentry prohibitions. This is fundamentally
unfair. My legislation provides that all illegal immigrants face the
same penalty--even if they are eligible for a change in status.
Finally, I have introduced two bills that would criminalize actions
common among illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, many illegal immigrants who are apprehended and agree
to voluntarily depart either fail to leave or leave only to return. My
bill would make it a felony, with a mandatory one year jail sentence,
for illegal immigrants agree to leave and then either fail to leave or
return illegally.
I have also found that too many illegal immigrants have figured out
that they are given a ``get out of jail free card'' when they are given
a notice to appear. Another bill I have introduced would make it a
felony, with a mandatory one-year jail sentence, when illegal
immigrants ignore the law and refuse to appear in court when ordered.
I know that these bills, if passed, will dramatically reduce illegal
immigration and identity theft. I ask my colleagues for their support
to protect our nation's sovereignty and our citizens' identities.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY PRESERVATION ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the
Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security
Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather
simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security
trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess
receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This
will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to
other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for
investment in interest-bearing instruments.
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will
keep its promises to America's seniors that taxes collected for Social
Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes
Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that
the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral
obligation to keep that promise.
With federal deficits reaching historic levels the pressure from
special interests for massive new raids on the trust fund is greater
than ever. Thus it is vital that Congress act now to protect the trust
fund from big spending, pork-barrel politics. Social Security reform
will be one of the major issues discussed in this Congress and many of
my colleagues have different ideas regarding how to best preserve the
long-term solvency of the program. However, as a medical doctor, I know
the first step in treatment is to stop the bleeding, and the Social
Security Preservation Act stops the bleeding of the Social Security
trust fund. I therefore call upon all my colleagues, regardless of
which proposal for long-term Social Security reform they support, to
stand up for America's seniors by cosponsoring the Social Security
Preservation Act.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MR. NATHAN SUBER

______

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an
outstanding citizen of Columbus, Georgia who has distinguished himself
as a dedicated and exemplary public servant. Mr. Nathan Suber joined
the Columbus City Council in 1994 and for the past 12 years has served
as City Councilman of Post 1.
Mr. Suber was born just across the waters of the Chattahoochee River
in nearby Phenix City, Alabama. Being the oldest of three children in a
military family, Mr. Suber learned at an early age the true meaning of
``service before self.'' As his father responded to the call of duty,
Nathan Suber and his family relocated several times throughout his
father's military career. It was not until the mid-sixties that the
Suber family's roots were once again firmly planted in the Columbus,
Georgia area. In 1968, Mr. Suber graduated from South Girard High
School and later went on to earn an A.A. in Criminology at the City
College of San Francisco and a B.A. in Criminal Justice at Columbus
State University.
During his tenure as a Columbus Councilman, Mr. Suber served as
Budget Review Committee Chairman for 1999-2000. In this appointed
position, he was instrumental in changing policy to allow the citizens
of Columbus access to budget sessions, which had previously been kept
closed to the public. As Chairman of this committee, Mr. Suber
exhibited steadfast dedication when he fought tirelessly to keep the
Fluellen Recreational Center's doors open and, in the process, secured
$462,000 in additional funding for the facility.
Mr. Suber also served on the Public Safety Committee and had a major
role in ensuring the security of our neighborhoods by implementing
measures to monitor the use of community resources. Among the many
notable and worthy projects to which he has contributed vital energy
and leadership were his efforts in designating the Midtown area of
Columbus as a historic district. This vital rezoning measure provided a
protective ordinance to the surrounding area, which prohibits
development that would otherwise degrade the historic quality of the
neighborhood.
Nathan Suber is known as a devout Christian and is a faithful member
of Fourth Street Missionary Baptist Church, where he currently serves
as Chairman of Trustees. His faith in God is shared with the younger
generation through the Sunday school lessons he provides. His goodwill
is further evident in his devotion to his family--his wife of twenty-
nine years, Charlene B. Suber; two daughters, Kelly Suber Jones and
Cynthia Suber; and one lovely grandchild, Morgan L. Jones.
Mr. Suber currently serves as Chairman of the Board of the Metro
Columbus Urban League, which further attests to his unwavering
commitment to community.
Today we honor Mr. Nathan Suber and thank him for all he has done for
the benefit of Columbus, Georgia--as an elected official and as a
private citizen driven by the compassion for others. His exemplary
service to his community has set a standard of dedication and
leadership that we are all compelled to emulate.

[[Page 345]]

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO CREATE A COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION

______

HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce
legislation to establish a cooperative research program for hazardous
materials transportation capable of meeting our Nation's urgent need
for applied research that examines hazardous materials transportation
from a comprehensive, multi-modal perspective.
During the 109th Congress, I introduced similar legislation and,
although it failed to pass as introduced, provisions from that bill
were included in the most recent federal transportation authorization,
SAFETEA-LU. Those provisions provided a total of $1.25 million in
federal funding per year from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009
to support the conduct of multi-modal studies of hazardous materials
transportation.
While the first of these 9 studies are now being planned for
implementation and will cover such topics as technologies to improve
safety and security and methods for improving the utility of data
collected from hazardous materials incidents, I believe it is crucial
that we create a permanent research program for hazardous materials
transportation.
Madam Speaker, it is estimated that one million hazardous materials
shipments move through thousands of local communities across the United
States every single day--usually without the knowledge of residents or
even of local officials. Between 1994 and 2003, unintentional releases
of hazardous materials resulted in 210 fatalities and more than 3,400
injuries.
Unfortunately, it is our tendency to focus on mitigating the risks
that these shipments pose only after an accident occurs. In 2001, such
an accident occurred in my district in Baltimore when a train derailed
in a tunnel, puncturing a tank car and releasing a hazardous material
that subsequently ignited.
This incident in the heart of Baltimore demonstrated to me and to my
constituents in the most dramatic possible way the risks of hazardous
materials transportation. Having seen first-hand these risks, I will
never forget them--and it is for this reason that I am again
introducing legislation to create a permanent hazardous materials
cooperative research program.
Under our Nation's current regime for regulating the shipment of
hazardous materials, more than a dozen federal agencies--as well as
literally thousands of state and local agencies--regulate some aspect
of hazardous materials transportation.
While each of these entities is critical and necessary to ensuring
the safety of hazardous materials transportation, each entity is
typically looking at hazardous materials from the perspective of a
single mode, a single type of material, or a single travel route.
What we now lack is a comprehensive, multi-modal perspective that can
examine risks and develop mitigation strategies that are applicable
across modes, material types, and travel routes.
To fill this gap, the legislation I am introducing today will bring
together representatives of federal agencies, private sector shippers
and carriers, and state and local governments in a formal program to
study cross-cutting topics in hazardous materials transportation that
are not adequately addressed by existing mode-specific research
programs.
The study program will be particularly focused on completing research
projects that yield practical results immediately applicable to
transportation issues.
Without the ability to adequately research and respond to issues in
hazardous materials transportation that are multi-modal in scope and
national in application, our ability to make informed legislative,
regulatory, and operational decisions regarding hazardous materials
transportation is unacceptably limited.
Therefore, I urge you to join with me in supporting the formulation
of a cooperative research program for hazardous materials
transportation by co-sponsoring this critical legislation.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft
Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-
mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as
the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft
Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number
as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to
issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within 5 years after
the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal
property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall
be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to
Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before
implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal
identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be
able to use an individual's original Social Security number to ensure
efficient administration of the Social Security system.
Madam Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this
problem because it was Congress that transformed the Social Security
number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no
American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional
license, or even get a driver's license without presenting his Social
Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security
number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social
Security number in order to get a fishing license!
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is
the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social
Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the
children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with
the State is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell
than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this nation's
founders.
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an
identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks
to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone's Social
Security number in order to access that person's bank accounts, credit
cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life
savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft.
Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by
mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national
ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of
investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private
transactions among American citizens. In 2005, this body established a
de facto national ID card with provisions buried in the
``intelligence'' reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers'
licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that
conforms to these standards as a valid ID.
Nationalizing standards for drivers' licenses and birth certificates
creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of this scheme
claim they are merely creating new standards for existing State IDs.
However, imposing Federal standards in a Federal bill creates a
federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped
with the name of your State.
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American
citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance
diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in
favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans. This is what happened
with ``suspicious activity reports'' required by the Bank Secrecy Act.
Thanks to BSA mandates, Federal officials are forced to waste countless
hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent
Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000.
Turning State-issued drivers licenses into federally controlled
national ID cards is yet another Federal usurpation of State authority
and another costly unfunded mandate imposed on the States. According to
a report issued by the National Conference of State Legislators,
turning drivers licenses into national ID cards will cost the States
more than $11 billion.
Madam Speaker, no wonder there is a groundswell of opposition to this
mandate. There is even a movement in several State legislatures to
refuse to comply with this mandate! The Identity Theft Prevention Act
not only repeals those sections of the Federal law creating a national
UD, it forbids the Federal Government from using Federal funds to
blackmail States into adopting uniform Federal identifiers. Passing the
Identity Theft Prevention Act is thus an excellent way for this
Congress to show renewed commitment to federalism and opposition to
imposing unfunded mandates on the States.

[[Page 346]]

This legislation not only repeals those sections of Federal law
creating the national ID, it also repeals those sections of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the
Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard
health identifier--an identifier which could be used to create a
national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As
an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the
importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient
relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient's
ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen
to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to
their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity
Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having
their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public
sector criminals.
Some members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs
the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to
operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a
constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their
liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here
to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy
invasion more efficient.
Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members
who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens' rights are
protected through legislation restricting access to personal
information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the
Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative
``privacy protections'' are inadequate to protect the liberty of
Americans for a couple of reasons.
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those Federal laws
that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public
than expanding the power of the Federal police force. Federal
punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have
suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations
as a result of identity theft.
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals,
but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials
from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to
restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-
publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of
the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of
active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information
stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if
thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal
information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking,
into one government facility or one government database?
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary
interests in private information for certain State-favored special
interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy
protection is the ``medical privacy''' regulation, that allows medical
researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials
access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth
Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, ``privacy
protection'' laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal
information when the government is the one seeking the information.
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is
insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks
constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal
identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any
Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates
liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government,
not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction
over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of
citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and ``bind
(the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.''
Madam Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and
constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act
should consider the American people's opposition to national
identifiers. The numerous complaints over the evergrowing uses of the
Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop
invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the
Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing
Americans to obtain a universal health ID.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to
join me in putting an end to the Federal Government's unconstitutional
use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens.
National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the
threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their
liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement
resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In
addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited,
constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join
my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting
the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

____________________

RECOGNIZING J. CHRIS KOLLMAN, III, MAYOR, CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS,
VIRGINIA FOR HIS SERVICE AND DEDICATION

______

HON. J. RANDY FORBES

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Mayor J. Chris
Kollman. After serving 28 distinguished years in public service, Mayor
Kollman has decided not to pursue another term in order to devote more
time to his family.
Mayor Kollman began his tenure with the City of Colonial Heights
nearly three decades ago when he was elected to City Council. During
his time on the Council he has served two terms as Mayor and two terms
as Vice-Mayor. He has been a part of many accomplishments of the city,
including the building of the vocational school, the development of
Southpark Mall, the building of the Colonial Heights Public Library,
the building of the Government Center, the revitalization of the old
City Hall Building into a Public Safety Building, the development of
the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Schools, and
his many efforts to help beautify the city.
In addition to his public service, Mr. Kollman served in the United
States Army where he received an Honorable Discharge. He is also
retired, after 30 years of service, from Bell Atlantic and currently
owns and operates C & C Lawn Service, Inc. He is a lifelong resident of
Colonial Heights and is a graduate of the Colonial Heights school
system.
Mr. Kollman is a former volunteer fireman, a member of the Colonial
Heights Optimist Club, served as co-chairman of the Colonial Heights
After Prom Committee, and is a member of Highland United Methodist
Church where he serves in various leadership positions.
Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Mr. J. Chris Kollman.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND
REAUTHORIZATION ACT

______

HON. DON YOUNG

of alaska

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today
the Multinational Species Conservation Fund Reauthorization Act. This
legislation will extend the authorization of appropriations for the
African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger
Conservation Act of 1994. These acts have been two of the most
effective conservation laws ever approved by the United States
Congress.
First enacted nearly two decades ago, the African Elephant
Conservation Act was designed to assist range countries who were
fighting a losing battle against heavily armed poachers who were
systematically annihilating the flagship species of the African
continent. By the mid-1980's, the population of African Elephants had
fallen from 1.3 million to less than 500,000 animals. In fact, only in
Botswana, South African and Zimbabwe were elephant populations stable.
In response to this growing wildlife crisis and the real likelihood
that this species could face extinction throughout most of its historic
range, Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation Act. This
landmark law was used to ban the importation of carved ivory into the
United States and its established the African Elephant Conservation
Fund. Under the terms of P.L. 100-478, the Secretary of the Interior
was directed to review conservation projects submitted by government
entities and non governmental organizations and to approve those that
significantly advanced the conservation needs of this important
species.
Since its inception, the Secretary has approved 280 conservation
grants in 23 African

[[Page 347]]

range countries. These grants have received nearly $17 million in U.S.
tax dollars and nearly $72 million in private matching funds. This
favorable ratio of more than 4 to 1 in private donations has been truly
remarkable.
The types of conservation projects approved include the training of
wildlife personnel; determining the population status, characteristics
and habitat needs of elephants in various range countries; providing
uniforms, tents and security equipment to wildlife rangers; monitoring
the impact of elephants on agriculture; research the seasonal migration
patterns of elephants; train local residents in the collection of
baseline elephant data and provide local communities with viable
economic alternatives to poaching elephants and other species.
One of the more interesting conservation projects has been the
partnership between local communities in Zambia and The Mcihenny
Company of Avery Island, Louisiana. What has transpired is that local
farmers are growing chilli peppers which are sold to be used in various
tabasco products. These peppers have produced badly needed income for
local African communities and they assisted in the conservation of
elephants who find the scent of growing and burning peppers
unacceptable to their sensory glands. The net effect is that not only
are pepper plants not trampled but adjoining agricultural crops are
protected by their cultivation. This innovative idea has been a real
conservation achievement.
While one of these projects would not by itself save the African
elephant, together, they have stopped the precipitous slide towards
extinction. Sadly, there is no question that elephants are still being
poached and that illegally obtained ivory remains a serious
international problem. This is why this law must be extended. This
small investment of taxpayer dollars is making a significant positive
difference is saving this species.
Section III of this legislation will extend the Rhinoceros and Tiger
Conservation Act. This act was designed to assist these two highly
imperiled species. In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
noted that: ``rhinos and tigers remain among the most charismatic and
some of the most endangered species on earth''.
At the time of its initial enactment in 1994, the number of
rhinoceros living in the wild had fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to fewer
than 16,000 animals. The five subspecies of tigers were facing an ever
more perilous future. At the turn of the 20th century, there were more
than 100,000 tigers living in the wild. By 1994, there were fewer than
6,000 tigers which represented a decline of roughly 95 percent. By
comparison, there are more than 25,000 tigers currently living in
captivity.
While there are many factors causing the decline of these species,
there is no question that poaching and loss of habitat are the two
primary reasons rhinos and tigers are facing extinction. A 1994
Newsweek cover shouted that the tiger was ``doomed'' unless the
international community took some concrete steps to save them. The
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act was one of those positive steps.
It was a lifeline to two species on the brink of disappearing and this
fund remains the only dedicated annual source of money for rhinos and
tigers in the world.
In the last 12 years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has received 744
conservation grant proposals to assist rhinos and tigers. The service
has approved 321 projects in range countries throughout Africa and
Asia. These proposals have received $7.8 million in federal funds with
nearly $20 million in private matching funds.
This money has been used to finance a host of projects including the
training of wildlife mangers; facilitating the reintroduction of white
rhinos; a database on tiger poaching; a tiger community education
program in Indonesia; monitoring tigers, prey and their habitat in
India's tiger reserves; providing emergency veterinary services to
treat injured black rhinos in Zimbabwe and investigating the poaching
and trade of wild tiger parts in India. The sponsors of these projects
include the International Rhino Foundation, The Wildlife Conservation
Society and the World Wildlife Fund.
According to the World Wildlife Fund: ``there is no question that
these programs have been instrumental in the conservation progress that
we have seen in the last decade''. In fact, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has indicated that: ``it has been expressed by field experts
that both the Javan and Sumatran rhinos might now be extinct were it
not for the multinational species conservation funds''.
The purpose of my legislation is to extend the authorization of
appropriations for the African Elephant Conservation Act and The
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act for an additional five years
until September 30, 2012. While I extend the existing annual
authorization levels of $5 million for elephants and $10 million for
rhinos and tigers, the stark reality is that it is highly unlikely that
these species will receive $15 million in funding each year. In fact,
sadly, the more likely outcome is about $2 million per year.
Nevertheless, $2 million is a huge amount of money in many local
African communities who do not have the funds to equip their wildlife
rangers with such basic equipment as tents, uniforms or weapons to
battle heavily financed and armed poachers.
This small investment of U.S. tax dollars has made a tremendous
difference in the fight to save these species from extinction. However,
the battle has not been won and it is essential that we reauthorize
these two highly effective conservation funds. In the words of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service: ``continued funding is critical in order to
help support efforts for these critically endangered species''. It will
be a monumental tragedy if we allow these flagship species to disappear
forever.
I urge my colleagues to support the Multinational Species
Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2007.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS ONLY ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for
American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government
from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends
the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security
Administration takes into account the number of year's an individual
worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining
that individual's eligibility for Social Security benefits!
Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already
provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries.
Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these
agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits
than public school teachers or policemen!
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile
Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. The
administration's totalization proposal, a version of which passed the
other body in the 109th Congress, actually allows thousands of
foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually
came to the United States and worked here illegally. Adding insult to
injury, the federal government may even give Social Security benefits
to non-citizens who worked here for as little as 18 months.
That's right: the federal government may actually allow someone who
came to the United States illegally, worked for less than the required
number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to
Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social
Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the
millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the
system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when
it is their turn to retire.
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to
those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration
laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more
would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government
paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of
the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very
disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather
than to states.
Estimates of what this latest totalization proposal would cost top
one billion dollars per year. As the system braces for a steep increase
in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund while
policy makers seriously consider cutting Social Security benefits to
American seniors and raising payroll taxes on American workers, it
makes no sense to expand Social Security into a global welfare system.
Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American
citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the
system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding
it to cover foreigners who have not.
It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist
bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I therefore
call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security Trust
Fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring the Social
Security for American Citizens Only Act.

[[Page 348]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO BEN STONE

______

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I, along with my colleague Congressman
Mike Thompson, rise today to honor Ben Stone, who recently completed 20
years of service as head of the Sonoma County Economic Development
Board. Under Ben's quiet but dynamic leadership, the Economic
Development Board (EDB) has successfully implemented programs that have
more than met the mandate of the County Board of Supervisors to enhance
economic development by concentrating on new and innovative programs
that enable businesses to remain competitive in a changing economy.
Ben came to Sonoma County from the Seattle area where he had been a
county administrator in Port Angeles, Washington, a consultant with
Arthur Andersen & Co. and a Special Projects Director with Scafco
Corporation. He graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla and
received his masters of Public Administration from the University of
Washington in Seattle.
Ben tells the story that, after coming to Sonoma County, he was
informed that a decision had been made to close the EDB. However, he
commenced creating programs atypical of economic development, which
bolstered the local economy, and, 20 years later, the EDB is thriving
under his leadership.
With the help of a small staff and interns, Ben has developed a
number of award-winning programs in concert with local private and
public sectors. Many of these programs have been successfully
transitioned to community-based organizations.
Among them are the Sonoma County Tourism Program, which served to
increase tourism 31 percent; two technology groups (SofTech, a trade
group, and the North Bay Techonology Roundtable, a policy group); Youth
Business Week; the Business Environmental Alliance; the North Bay WorId
Trade Association; the Small Business Center now operated by Santa Rosa
Junior College; a home-based business project; and a business crime
prevention program. Ben's office still operates the Sonoma County Film
Commission.
Ben also initiated a broad-based strategic planning process resulting
in the formation of bachelors and master's degree programs in
Engineering Science at Sonoma State University, a new cooperative
agricultural marketing program, and an economic research program. An
EDB forum, the Business Regulatory Roundtable, involving elected
officials, regulatory agencies, and business executives to improve
local regulatory processes, resulted in Northern California's first
multi-agency Permit Assistance Center.
By creating the Economic Development Board Foundation, the EDB is
able to support research projects, bring expert speakers to discuss
aspects of the economy at local presentations twice annually, present
an annual State of the County program, and recognize local business men
and women at the annual Spirit of Sonoma County Awards program.
Ben developed one of the most visited websites in the County. The EDB
pages contain all the research reports, information on upcoming events,
the latest initiatives sponsored by his office, and the first live web
cast of the State of the County event. In addition, Ben helped
establish the California-Swiss Foundation, the World Affairs Council,
and has been on the boards of the Sonoma County Museum, the Sonoma
County YMCA, and presently is a member of the President's Council at
Santa Rosa Junior College.
Some form of the Economic Development Board has been a part of Sonoma
County since the late 1950s. If you wanted assistance from Ben in the
early days of his 20-year tenure, your first task would be to find his
office, which moved four times in the first 10 years before finding a
home on College Avenue in Santa Rosa. His long-time friends
particularly recall his small office on Cleveland Avenue piled with
filing boxes that a visitor clambered over to reach his desk.
A wall of certificates and plaques now greets visitors to his office,
including a Grand Prize for Excellence from the California Association
of Economic Development; four Achievement Awards from the National
Association of Counties; and six Innovation Awards from the National
Association of Development Organizations.
Madam Speaker, we want to honor Ben Stone today for his 20 years of
service to Sonoma County and the Economic Development Board. He has
made many friends in the many communities he serves and is always
willing to give a boost to new arrivals or make that important contact
for someone who needs assistance. As Ben always says to others, we wish
him many more ``Onward and Upward'' years at the Sonoma County Economic
Development Board.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF LOWER BRULE AND CROW CREEK TRIBAL COMPENSATION ACT

______

HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH

of south dakota

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Lower
Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act. This bill would fully
compensate the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
in South Dakota for the lands that they lost in the last century as a
result of the federal government's construction of the massive dams on
the main stem of the Missouri River.
The 1944 Flood Control Act cost these tribes much in terms of lost
land. It also took an enormous toll on the people of both tribes and
their economies. It is critically important that we seek to fully
reimburse these tribes for the lands they lost.
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe are both
constituent bands of the Great Sioux Nation. Both border on the
Missouri River in central South Dakota and are connected by the Big
Bend Dam.
Congress created a trust fund for the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in 1996,
and a separate trust fund for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in 1997.
These trust funds sought to compensate the tribes for the value of
their land that is now permanently inundated as a result of the
construction of the Big Bend Dam. Unfortunately, the compensation
amounts between different but similarly situated tribes varied greatly
along the Missouri River. The result was unfair and inadequate
compensation trust funds for these tribes. This act is designed to
create consistency among the affected tribes and to bring some long-
overdue closure to two tribes whose best lands were inundated decades
ago.
This legislation already has a history that spans multiple
Congresses. An earlier version of this bill was reported by the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs in the 108th Congress and ultimately passed
the Senate. In the 109th Congress it was amended in the Senate after
further hearings and then reported. I am hopeful that the House will
move quickly in the 110th to Congress to advance this important
legislation.
Compensation for these tribes would mean an ability to actively work
for the betterment of their communities. It would mean adequate roads
and improved community facilities. It would mean better health care and
newer schools. It would mean attracting commercial business and
improving the local economy. Most importantly, it would mean a real
chance for these tribes to provide future generations with the tools
that so many of us take for granted.
I would ask all of my distinguished colleagues to support the Lower
Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act and work with me to enact
legislation that would fairly and appropriately compensate members of
the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes. I ask you to do it because
of the tremendous positive difference it would make in the lives of
those affected--and because it is the right and fair thing to do.

____________________

HONORING BEN STONE OF SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

______

HON. MIKE THOMPSON

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I, along with my colleague
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, rise today to honor Ben Stone, who recently
completed 20 years of service as head of the Sonoma County Economic
Development Board. Under Ben's quiet but dynamic leadership, the
Economic Development Board (EDB) has successfully implemented programs
that have more than met the mandate of the County Board of Supervisors
to enhance economic development by concentrating on new and innovative
programs that enable businesses to remain competitive in a changing
economy.
Ben came to Sonoma County from the Seattle area where he had been a
county administrator in Port Angeles, Washington, a consultant with
Arthur Andersen & Co. and a Special Projects Director with Scafco
Corporation. He graduated from Whitman College in Walla

[[Page 349]]

Walla and received his Masters of Public Administration from the
University of Washington in Seattle.
Ben tells the story that, after coming to Sonoma County, he was
informed that a decision had been made to close the EDB. However, he
commenced creating programs atypical of economic development, which
bolstered the local economy, and, 20 years later, the EDB is thriving
under his leadership.
With the help of a small staff and interns, Ben has developed a
number of award-winning programs in concert with local private and
public sectors. Many of these programs have been successfully
transitioned to community-based organizations.
Among them are the Sonoma County Tourism Program, which served to
increase tourism 31 percent; two technology groups (SofTech, a trade
group, and the North Bay Technology Roundtable, a policy group); Youth
Business Week; the Business Environmental Alliance; the North Bay World
Trade Association; the Small Business Center now operated by Santa Rosa
Junior College; a home-based business project; and a business crime
prevention program. Ben's office still operates the Sonoma County Film
Commission.
Ben also initiated a broad-based strategic planning process resulting
in the formation of bachelors and master's degree programs in
Engineering Science at Sonoma State University, a new cooperative
agricultural marketing program, and an economic research program. An
EDB forum, the Business Regulatory Roundtable, involving elected
officials, regulatory agencies, and business executives to improve
local regulatory processes, resulted in Northern California's first
multi-agency Permit Assistance Center.
By creating the Economic Development Board Foundation, the EDB is
able to support research projects, bring expert speakers to discuss
aspects of the economy at local presentations twice annually, present
an annual State of the County program, and recognize local business men
and women at the annual Spirit of Sonoma County Awards program.
Ben developed one of the most visited websites in the County. The EDB
pages contain all the research reports, information on upcoming events,
the latest initiatives sponsored by his office, and the first live web
cast of the State of the County event In addition, Ben helped establish
the California-Swiss Foundation, the World Affairs Council, and has
been on the boards of the Sonoma County Museum, the Sonoma County YMCA,
and presently is a member of the President's Council at Santa Rosa
Junior College.
Some form of the Economic Development Board has, been a part of
Sonoma County since the late 1950s. If you wanted assistance from Ben
in the early days of his 20-year tenure, your first task would be to
find his office, which moved four times in the first 10 years before
finding a home on College Avenue in Santa Rosa. His long-time friends
particularly recall his small office on Cleveland Avenue piled with
filing boxes that a visitor clambered over to reach his desk.
A wall of certificates and plaques now greets visitors to his office,
including a Grand Prize for Excellence from the California Association
of Economic Development; four Achievement Awards from the National
Association of Counties; and six Innovation Awards, from the National
Association of Development Organizations.
Madam Speaker, we want to honor Ben Stone today for his 20 years of
service to Sonoma County and the Economic Development Board. He has
made many friends in the many communities he serves and is always
willing to give a boost to new arrivals or make that important contact
for someone who needs assistance. As Ben always says to others, we wish
him many more ``Onward and Upward'' years at the Sonoma County Economic
Development Board.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug
Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans,
including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products.
My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing
their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing
pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making
affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from
being strangled by federal regulation.
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit
equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. While Congress
did add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in 2003, many seniors
still have difficulty affording the prescription drugs they need in
order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. One reason is
because the new program creates a ``doughnut hole,'' where seniors lose
coverage once their prescription expenses reach a certain amount and
must pay for their prescriptions above a certain amount out of their
own pockets until their expenses reach a level where Medicare coverage
resumes. This tax credit will help seniors cover the expenses provided
by the doughnut hole. This bill will also help seniors obtain
prescription medicines that may not be covered by the Medicare
prescription drug program.
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for
seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by
reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.
Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an
application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA
finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is
adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable
imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Madam Speaker,
letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of
prescription drugs.
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other
Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have
demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers
from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to
these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules
governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation
of this provision has been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is
time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all
unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals.
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers'
access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from
regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-
licensed pharmacists.
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes
pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for
millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened
to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional
regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal
regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus
depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription
medications.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make
pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on
senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of
pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from
needless regulation by cosponsoring the Prescription Drug Affordability
Act.

____________________

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HOSPITAL DESIGNATED AS MAGNET HOSPITAL BY THE
AMERICAN NURSES CREDENTIALING CENTER

______

HON. DENNIS MOORE

of kansas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, December 20, 2006,
the University of Kansas Hospital became the first hospital in Kansas
to attain the coveted Magnet^TM designation. The Department
of Nursing began working toward this goal in 2002.
Since the American Nurses Credentialing Center developed the Magnet
Recognition Program^' in 1990, approximately 225 facilities--
less than 3 percent of all hospitals--have attained Magnet designation.
To join this exclusive group, both the nursing staff and hospital have
demonstrated their ability to meet and exceed more than 150
professional standards of excellence.
Magnet designation recognizes the quality and importance of our
nursing department. It also emphasizes the important role our nurses
play in the hospital's success. Magnet hospitals exemplify the very
best in patient care and outcomes. Just 3.5 percent of health care
organizations are Magnet hospitals.
This designation proves the commitment of the University of Kansas
Hospital to excellent patient care outcomes. Magnet designation means a
hospital outperforms others and is statistically proven to have: higher
quality

[[Page 350]]

care; better patient outcomes; lower mortality rate; significantly
higher levels of patient satisfaction; salaries typically above
average; excellent nursing recruitment; higher nursing retention; and
greater consumer confidence. Madam Speaker, I am proud to have the
opportunity to bring this noteworthy designation to your attention, and
to the attention of the House of Representatives as a whole.

____________________

PROTECTING IMPACT AID FOR NORTH SUBURBAN SCHOOLS

______

HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to ensure the
federal government fulfills an important obligation to the families of
servicemen and women in my district. In 1950, President Harry Truman
established the Impact Aid program to assist school districts and
communities that lose their property tax base because of the presence
of the federal government. Without this federal money, the burden would
fall to the remaining residents whose property taxes would continue to
rise while impacting the quality of education which can be provided.
The Impact Aid program helps to alleviate this problem by directly
reimbursing public school districts for the loss of traditional revenue
sources.
For years Impact Aid was fully funded and offered some of the
strongest direct assistance to military families across the nation.
Unfortunately, over the last decade we have fallen behind on this
commitment, and it is time to reverse this trend.
While I support fully funding the Impact Aid program, I believe the
situation in my district warrants special attention. In order to ensure
that our students most in need continue to receive necessary resources,
I have introduced this bill to help North Chicago to continue to
qualify for heavily impacted payments, and Glenview and Highland Park
receive fair compensation.
Due to a unique housing situation for the Great Lakes Naval Training
Facility, Impact Aid funding should be higher in five of my school
districts. This Naval base is located in North Chicago, one of the
poorest school districts in my state. However, some service members and
their families live in Navy housing obtained when Ft. Sheridan and
Naval Air Station Glenview, located in other suburbs, were closed in
the 1990's. These former bases are located within the boundaries of
other school districts that now must bear the economic cost of
educating children from a base, but receive none of the economic
benefits a base provides. Thus, it is vitally important that we both
ensure North Chicago continues to receive heavily impacted payments for
the benefit of students living there, and that the surrounding
communities are more fairly compensated for their loss of property
taxes.
By passing this bill, the federal government will be fulfilling its
responsibility to these communities, and giving our military families
the support they deserve.

____________________

HONORING THE SERVICE AND RETIREMENT OF CHARLES E. COOKE

______

HON. BART GORDON

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
service of a valued staff member--Charles E. Cooke--who retired this
month from the House Science Committee. As a professional staffer on
the Energy Subcommittee, Charlie's expertise on the issues of energy
production, energy research and development, and energy conservation
have been unmatched.
Charlie has been working on energy issues since the 1960s, when he
was a staffer for the Texas State Legislature. In the 1970s he moved to
Washington to work with the Federal Power Commission. He represented
Southern California Edison in its Washington office in the late
seventies. From 1979 to 1985 he was a principal in a consulting firm
that represented Texas interests in Washington and Austin.
Charlie came to Capitol Hill in 1985, first as a legislative
assistant to Rep. Ralph Hall (TX) and then as staff of the Committee on
Science. In 1990, Charlie went back to work for Southern California
Edison on energy restructuring, telecommunications, electric
transportation, and tax issues. After leaving Edison, he joined the EOP
Group, an energy and environmental consulting firm, and then returned
to the Hill in 1998 to serve as Special Assistant to Congressman Hall,
working on utility restructuring. Finally, in 2000 Charlie returned to
the Science Committee as a professional staff member with
responsibility for energy issues.
Before switching to the political science field, Charlie began his
early studies in electrical engineering, and his engineering training
comes through, both in his approach to problems and in his passions:
home improvement and landscape architecture. He has been an active
volunteer in planning the House botanical gardens and on the Advisory
Board of the Landscape Architecture Department at the University of
Texas.
Charlie's easygoing personality, issue expertise, and his talent for
making great barbeque will be long remembered on this Committee. The
Science Committee's Members and staff wish him well as he moves on to
new endeavors and a relaxing retirement. Thank you, Charlie, for your
many years of dedicated and loyal service.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE FIRST GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH OF SPRINGFIELD,
MASSACHUSETTS

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to pay
my respects to the First Greek Orthodox Church in Springfield,
Massachusetts, upon the occasion of its 100th anniversary.
In 1907 an old house was acquired on Auburn Street, converted into a
place of worship and it was here that the rapidly growing Greek
community held their first church services.
By 1920 the Greek population had grown so large that the Auburn
Street building no longer could accommodate the members of St. George's
Greek Orthodox Church. A building fund campaign was soon inaugurated to
raise the funds to buy a new church. A building was purchased on Patton
Street which provided adequate facilities for church services, a Greek
school and administrative offices.
By 1940 the Greek population had again increased greatly. It was at
this time that the Congregational Memorial Church at Main and
Plainfield Streets became available. The Greek community took advantage
of this opportunity and purchased the Memorial Church and its spacious
parish house on October 7, 1940. This magnificent Gothic church, built
in 1866, was designed by the noted architect, Richard Upjohn, with a
high vaulted ceiling and priceless stained glass windows.
By 1975 the Church began looking at new sites for a community center
and by June 1977 it was decided that St. George would expand and stay
in Springfield. A General Assembly approved plans for a parish center
by purchasing the old Memorial Square Library Building. The St. George
Greek Orthodox Church Cultural Center was opened in 1978 and to the
present time it houses administrative offices, classrooms for Sunday
and Greek schools, a gymnasium and facilities for social functions. A
chapel was added to the building in 1986.
The first Greek immigrants in Springfield brought with them their
history, their philosophies, their democratic ideals, their courage,
their culture and traditions, their Greek language and customs, their
festive celebrations, their foods, music and dance and most of all
their Greek Orthodox faith which they have handed down from one
generation to the next all of which we celebrate this centennial year.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE GERALD R. FORD, JR. POST OFFICE ACT

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation
to name the post office in Vail, Colorado, after our Nation's 39th
President, Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
I believe this legislation is appropriate as another means of
honoring the legacy of President Ford, in large part because of his
special connection to Colorado and the Vail Valley.
In 1968 then-Congressman Ford and his wife, Betty, first came to
Colorado with their children to celebrate Christmas and to ski in the
mountains at Vail. Like many other visitors, President Ford was
inspired by the beauty of the area and found a connection to the land
and to the surrounding community.
The Fords later owned a home and continued to vacation in Vail. When
he became

[[Page 351]]

President, his vacations in Colorado helped introduce the world to the
Town of Vail, and in fact, the family home was dubbed ``the Western
White House.''
Vail residents knew President Ford and his family as neighbors and
friends and are proud of their long association with them. Gerald Ford
was beloved in Vail, where he was known to be a good neighbor, an avid
golfer and a lover of the outdoors.
President Ford will rightly be remembered for his personal warmth,
his decency, his interest in bridging the many divisions in America
during the 1970s. My father, Mo Udall, served in Congress with Gerald
Ford, and while they were often on different sides in political
matters--so much so that my father hoped to run against President Ford
in the famous election of 1976--they were united by a common view that
politics should unite people. They both were firm believers that in
public life one could disagree without being disagreeable.
This is a credo I continue to believe in, and I commend the memory of
both good men to this House, an institution they loved.
Coloradans, especially those in the Vail Valley, have come to think
of him as the first President from Colorado because he was a great
ambassador for the State, who established long ties to the people of
Colorado.
As a dedicated public servant, President Ford served honorably in his
years in Congress and in the White House. Most important, when America
needed someone to reassure their trust in government after Watergate,
he filled that leadership role with authenticity.
I believe President Ford's special relationship and legacy in
Colorado should be appropriately recognized by naming the postal
facilities in Vail, Colorado, in his honor.

____________________

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION ACT

______

HON. DAVID DREIER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, in the last two Congresses we have spent
considerable time on the extremely important issue of immigration and
homeland security. In the 108th Congress, we passed the National
Intelligence Reform Act, a landmark piece of legislation to overhaul
our intelligence agencies. But, as I noted at that time, the bill
unfortunately did not go far enough in addressing the major security
vulnerability presented by the porous nature of our borders.
Seeing that need, in the 109th Congress we debated immigration
extensively and even passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection,
Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
Regrettably, the Senate failed to act on this important piece of
legislation. That is why I rise to ask for the support of my colleagues
for an illegal immigration control plan that I am pleased to introduce
today. This proposal, the Immigration Enforcement and Social Security
Protection Act, is designed to eliminate up to 98 percent of the
illegal border crossings into the United States.
I believe that in order for any proposal to stop illegal immigration
to be successful, it must get at the root cause of what attracts
illegal immigrants to our country--and that is the lure of economic
opportunity and the ease with which illegal workers can find jobs.
Under the Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act,
we will dramatically increase the enforcement of laws which prohibit
American businesses from employing illegal immigrants. Regrettably, too
many employers have been unwilling to comply with the law. The growing
availability of counterfeit identity documents has also undermined the
current system because employers are increasingly unable to establish
the authenticity of documents presented by job applicants.
Our legislation adds new features to the Social Security card to
deter counterfeiting and make it easier for employers to determine
whether a card is genuine by including a digitized photo of the
cardholder on the card. The improved Social Security card will also be
encoded with a unique electronic encryption code to allow employers to
verify each prospective applicant's work eligibility status prior to
hiring, through either an electronic card-reader or a toll-free
telephone number. The Department of Homeland Security will be required
to establish and maintain an Employment Eligibility Database with
information on a person's proof of citizenship data, work, and
residency eligibility information, including expiration dates for non-
citizens. This database will also include information from the Social
Security Administration that the Commissioner determines necessary and
appropriate for the purpose of verifying an individual's work
eligibility status. Employers who hire an illegal immigrant or choose
not to verify a prospective employee's work eligibility will face stiff
federal fines of $50,000 and up to 5 years in prison. The employer
would also be required to reimburse the government for the cost of
deporting the illegal immigrant. Moreover, this bill provides that no
officer or employee of the Department of Homeland Security shall have
access to any information contained in the Employment Eligibility
Database for any purpose other than the establishment of a system of
records necessary for the effective administration of this act, and
will imposes penalties of $10,000 in fines and mandatory-minimum
sentence of 5 years in prison on anyone who misuses information on the
database.
With the improved Social Security card and national verification
system, employers will have no excuse for hiring illegal immigrants. By
eliminating the supply of jobs for illegal workers, we will end the
incentive for illegal immigrants to enter the United States because
they will know that they will be unable to make a living here. Legal
workers will only need to update their Social Security card once to
have their photo placed on the card and for other long-overdue anti-
fraud measures to be applied. Moreover, a worker would only need the
updated Social Security card when applying for a new job. I want to
make it very, very clear that this proposal does not represent the
creation of a national identification card. This bill strictly
prohibits the use of the Social Security card as a national ID card,
and stipulates that the card not be required to be routinely carried on
one's person. Social Security cards are often already required to be
provided to new employers; the changes we are proposing to the Social
Security card take us no further down the road of creating a national
ID card. It should be noted that the government already has the
information that would be contained in the Employment Eligibility
Database. an individual's eligibility to work under the law is
dependent on whether they are a U.S. citizen, and if not, their
immigration status. Finally, the Immigration Enforcement and Social
Security Protection Act also puts teeth into the new enforcement
procedures by calling for the addition of 10,000 new Homeland Security
officers whose sole responsibility will be to enforce employer
compliance with the law. These new agents will free up the rest of the
Border Patrol to exclusively focus on border enforcement and terrorism
prevention.
Madam Speaker, I do not stand here today to tell the rest of the
world that we intend to limit opportunities for the American dream to
be fulfilled. As my good friend Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of my
home state of California and an immigrant himself has said, many arrive
in America ``owning nothing but a dream.'' However, the Governor has
also noted that the first order of our government must be to provide
security for our borders. If foreign nationals wish to come to the
United States, they must, as Governor Schwarzenegger said, ``play by
the rules,'' and we must make clear that there will be no economic
opportunity for anyone who enters this country illegally. I look
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in this effort, and
hope they will consider joining me as we take action on this vital
national security priority.
I would like to thank my original co-sponsors for this legislation,
including, Mr. Reyes of Texas, who began his career in public service
with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in the U.S. Border
Patrol, where he worked for 26\1/2\ years, as well as my colleagues
from California, Mr. Issa, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Bilbray.

____________________

THE PATERSON GREAT FALLS NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 2007

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce the
Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2007. This bipartisan
legislation is cosponsored by every Member of the New Jersey
Congressional delegation, and would designate a National Park at the
majestic Great Falls in Paterson, New Jersey. I urge my colleagues to
pass this legislation as soon as possible.
Fifteen miles west of New York City, the Great Falls was the second
largest waterfall in colonial America. No other natural wonder in
America has played such an important role in our Nation's historic
quest for freedom and prosperity. At the Great Falls, Alexander
Hamilton conceived and implemented a plan to harness the force of water
to power the new industries that would secure our economic
independence.

[[Page 352]]

Hamilton told Congress and the American people that at the Great
Falls he would begin implementation of his ambitious strategy to
transform a rural agrarian society dependent upon slavery into a modem
economy based on freedom. True to Hamilton's vision, Paterson became a
great manufacturing city, producing the Colt revolver, the first
submarine, the aircraft engine for the first trans-Atlantic flight,
more locomotives than any city in the Nation, and more silk than any
city in the world.
New Jersey's Great Falls is the only National Historic District that
includes both a National Natural Resource and a National Historic
Landmark. In a special Bicentennial speech in Paterson with the
spectacular natural beauty of the Great Falls in the background, the
late President Gerald R. Ford said, ``We can see the Great Falls as a
symbol of the industrial might which helps to make America the most
powerful nation in the world.''
Preeminent Hamilton biographers; an esteemed former Smithsonian
Institution curator, the former chief of the National Park Service
Historic American Engineering Record, and distinguished professors at
Yale, Princeton, Harvard, NYU, Brown and other universities have filed
letters with the National Park Service strongly recommending a National
Historical Park for the Great Falls Historic District. Editorial
boards, federal, state, and local officials and community groups have
also endorsed the campaign to award a National Park Service designation
to the Falls.
Scholars have concluded that Pierre L'Enfant's innovative water power
system in Paterson, and many factories built later, constitute the
finest remaining collection of engineering and architectural structures
representing each stage of America's progress from a weak agrarian
society to a leader in the global economy. It is a little known fact
that L'Enfant was hired by Hamilton to create Paterson as the sister
city to Washington, DC, having completed his plan of Washington only
months before arriving in Paterson.
This proposed National Park would also encompass historic Hinchliffe
Stadium, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places by
the National Park Service in 2004. This stadium, built in 1932, is
adjacent to the Great Falls and was home to the New York Black Yankees.
Baseball legend Larry Doby played in Hinchliffe Stadium both as a star
high school athlete and again as a Negro League player, shortly before
becoming the first African-American to play in the American League.
Madam Speaker, Congress must act now to pass this vital piece of
legislation, so that we may fully recognize these cultural and historic
landmarks that have played such a seminal role in America's history.

____________________

STATEMENT OF INTRODUCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO STUDY REPARATION
PROPOSALS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS ACT

______

HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I come before this body to
reintroduce the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-
Americans Act. I have advanced the Commission bill for over 15 years to
direct attention to a historical wrong that warrants substantial
consideration and discussion. Since introduction in 1989, I have never
intended to spark controversy or promote division. Rather, I have
worked to further a national dialogue on the plight of African
Americans in the context of slavery, Jim Crow, and other legally
sanctioned discrimination.
As a result, our dialogue has become more substantive and afforded us
invaluable knowledge over the years. This Congress I intend to continue
such discourse. I will also work to ensure that more people understand
the benefit and the promise of a Commission. Unfortunately, there are
too many that do not understand its purpose. This means that we must
dispel the myths and correct the mistruths surrounding the Commission
bill.
Each Congress, the conversations and efforts surrounding the
Commission bill become more mature and sophisticated. Today we have a
better understanding of slavery and its implications than we did 16
years ago. Since 1989, over forty states and cities have passed
legislation in support of the Commission bill. In 2002, lawsuits were
filed against U.S. corporations for their role in perpetuating slavery.
The following year, in 2003, Brown University created the Committee on
Slavery and Justice to assess the University's role in slavery and
determine a response. And in 2004, a federal appeals court ruled that
statute of limitations prevented redress in the case of the 1921 Tulsa
Race Riot, but opened the door for legislative recourse.
Most recently, on December 13, 2006, a federal appeals court ruled
that U.S. corporations can be found guilty of consumer fraud for
failing to disclose their roles in slavery. Just a few weeks earlier,
on November 27th, Prime Minister Tony Blair condemned the African slave
trade and Britain's participation. As Brown University prepares to act
on Committee recommendations in February, and on the eve of the 200th
anniversary of Britain's prohibition of slavery in March, productive
discussions on both the national and global levels seem promised.
However, as this dialogue continues to grow, one entity is noticeably
absent--the federal government. The Commission would ensure proper
participation in this conversation, in addition to taking us giant
steps towards closure on this matter. The truth is that the institution
of slavery will continue to tarnish the American national story until
we confront this part of our history. While a Commission will not erase
the past, it can bring us closer to racial reconciliation and
advancement.
A Commission would not only examine the institution of slavery, but
the legacy of slavery that weighs heavily on this country. Just last
Congress, a bipartisan collective reauthorized the Voting Rights Act
because racial inequities and injustices are a reality. This reality is
the result of the social, economic, and political disenfranchisement
African Americans have endured throughout our experience in this
country. For a majority of this nation's history, this
disenfranchisement was mandated by law. Disparities in education,
housing, healthcare and other critical aspects of society have
resulted.
After examining the issues, the Commission would recommend
appropriate remedies to Congress. There is this common misperception
that ``remedies'' means monetary compensation. Let me be clear, the
Commission bill does not mandate financial payments of any kind.
Recommendations would be at the sole discretion of the Commission. It
is unfair to dismiss the idea of a Commission based on a fear that
monetary reparations will be warranted. We need to understand that a
reparations discussion goes beyond money.
We must also recognize that understanding slavery and its modern day
implications is in the best interest of our society. This nation should
serve as an example for corporations, universities, and other
countries. In the 110th Congress, I look forward to open and
constructive discourse about the Commission bill.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO HARVEY CHRISTIE

______

HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Harvey
Christie, better known to people across West Virginia as Chef Harv.
Chef Harv was tragically killed at age 42 in a car accident near
Romney, West Virginia on December 1, 2006. He is survived by his wife
Christy and two children.
Chef Harv traveled across West Virginia, as a caterer, as the host of
``West Virginia Cooks'', a Public Broadcasting cooking show, and as a
champion for local agriculture products in our state.
Chef Harv never stopped promoting West Virginia's small farmers and
food products. Whether it was catering a community dinner or visiting
4-H camp, he inspired a love for our state's agriculture goods to
countless people.
Each year Chef Harv made the trip to Washington to remind members of
Congress of the importance of supporting our local farmers. On each
trip he cooked for ``A Taste of the Virginias'' held in a House office
building--providing a meal made entirely from items grown in West
Virginia or Virginia.
The amazing food Chef Harv prepared, like his award winning ``Harv's
Hot Pepper Jelly'' was matched only by his outgoing, engaging
personality that was an inspiration to those around him. West
Virginia's agriculture community has suffered a tremendous loss with
his passing, and he will be missed by countless friends across our
state.
On January 13, Chef Harv's family and friends will gather to remember
a life that ended much too soon. My thoughts and prayers are with his
wife, children, and all of his friends and family during this difficult
time.

[[Page 353]]

____________________

NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH VIETNAM

______

HON. TRENT FRANKS

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, on December 8, 2006, the House
considered H.R. 6406, which, among other things, authorized the
permanent extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations) to the products of Vietnam. While I am a strong proponent of
free trade and I am committed to helping broaden the United States'
relationship with Vietnam, I could not, in good conscience, vote for
this legislation.
I continue to hold serious concerns about Vietnam's human rights
record, as well as their handling of cases regarding U.S. Armed Forces
personnel missing and killed in action during the Vietnam War.
Madam Speaker, I truly believe that the overall benefits of free
trade are numerous for our country and that of our trading partners.
These positive aspects include a higher economic standard of living, a
wider range of higher quality products at lower costs, and a migration
of workers from less competitive markets to more competitive and
productive markets. As a former small business owner, I am and will
remain a strong advocate for free trade.
However, I also believe that religious liberty and respect for human
rights should be requirements for achieving the broadest possible
economic success.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF FEDERAL JUDGESHIP FOR U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF
NEBRASKA

______

HON. LEE TERRY

of nebraska

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a looming
judicial crisis in my state of Nebraska. Today, with my Nebraska
colleagues Congressman Jeff Fortenberry and Congressman Adrian Smith, I
am introducing legislation to create an additional federal judgeship
for the United States District Court, District of Nebraska.
Nebraska has three permanent judgeships and three senior judges. An
additional temporary judgeship was created in 1990 and lapsed in May
2004 when a judge took senior status, despite recommendations by the
Judicial Conference of the United States to convert the temporary
status to a permanent position. After the lapse, the Judicial
Conference has continued to recommend an additional permanent
judgeship. To further burden the district, two of the court's three
senior judges are in their early eighties and do not take full
caseloads. The third senior judge also cannot handle a full caseload
due to health reasons, and as a result, the senior judges provided the
equivalent of less than one active judge in 2005.
Our delegation has introduced this important legislation on the very
first day of the 110th Congress because the need for immediate
Congressional action has never been greater. Nebraska's federal
district courts handle a heavy caseload, not unlike many federal
district courts nationwide. However, the number of Nebraska federal
district court judges' criminal felony filings ranks them 5th
nationwide and is more than twice the national average. Furthermore,
the Nebraska judges have increased their overall number of completed
trials by 41 percent since 2001 and now rank 2nd nationwide on a per-
judgeship basis.
Weighted filings currently total 590 per judgeship, the 7th highest
total in the Nation. Based on the current total of three authorized
judgeships, the court's weighted filings are well above the standards
of 500 per judgeship for small courts.
These numbers mean nothing unless they are put into a real life
context. Nebraska is a rural state and the judges must travel long
distances in order to try cases. For example, judges in Omaha must
travel almost 600 miles four times per year to conduct 2-week jury
sessions. Additionally, magistrates are sent out one month prior to the
judge's arrival to conduct pretrial conferences on all cases pending
trial. All this travel takes its toll on these judges and forces them
at times to use the services of judges from other districts.
The strain on assistance from senior judges, the high number of
felony criminal cases and the heavy weighted caseload demonstrate
clearly that the district of Nebraska requires four permanent
judgeships. I call on all of my colleagues to recognize the pressing
need for immediate Congressional action to create an additional federal
judgeship in Nebraska.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MARE ISLAND ORIGINAL 21ERS

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the Mare Island Original
21ers for their efforts to end racial discrimination at Mare Island
Naval Shipyard.
On November 17, 1962, 21 African American workers at Mare Island
Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, CA, took a historic step by filing a racial
discrimination complaint with President Kennedy's newly created
Committee on Equal Job Opportunities. The complaint quickly helped lead
to sweeping changes locally at the shipyard and nationally at military
installations, including early affirmative action-type programs. All
the men wanted was a wage comparable to their white co-workers and to
be treated equally. What they started was a chain reaction that
reverberated around the country. The group would become known as the
Mare Island Original 21ers, and would forever change the base's social
landscape.
Despite these pioneering steps, their early civil rights efforts
remain in obscurity. The group's surviving members still talk about the
movement, but the full story was buried in the 1960s and only recently
came to light as a result of a series of newspaper articles by Vallejo
Times Herald reporter Matthias Gafni.
Their story is typical of the time. Vallejo was a Navy town, and a
separated one. With its naval shipyard, Vallejo has always had a
population reflecting a wide range of ethnic backgrounds; but it was
not always harmonious. In the late 1950s minorities were mostly working
in unskilled positions at Mare Island as sandblasters, laborers and
cleaners, with efforts to keep them out of certain positions. The
discrimination was not restricted to withholding promotions and unfair
hiring practices, according to one of the workers. At every phase of
each work day they faced discrimination.
By 1960 the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy and the African
American workers were losing patience. In March 1961, President Kennedy
issued an executive order establishing a sweeping, government-wide
Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. 21 workers began organizing under
the leadership of Willie Long, meeting in complete secrecy to protect
their safety and their jobs. A complaint was drafted and 25 workers
ultimately signed it. The complaint covered deplorable conditions for
black workers, involving promotions, the apprenticeship program, and
general unfair treatment. The shipyard commander found no pattern of
discrimination, but President Kennedy's committee was inundated with
similar complaints from around the country and changes were finally
made after several years. Almost everyone who signed the original
complaint was promoted to supervisor and fortunately escaped any of the
serious reprisals they feared.
Their quiet but risky fight for equal treatment helped change our
Nation. These heroic men included Willie Long, Boston Banks, Jr.,
Matthew Barnes, Louis Greer, Jake Sloan, Charles Fluker, Clarence
Williams, James Davis, Thomas King, Robert E. Borden, James O. Hall,
Matthew Luke, Herman Moore, Jimmie James, John L. McGhee, James J.
Colbert, Virgil N. Herndon, Eddie Brady, Brodie Taylor, W.J. Price,
Levi Jones, Herbert H. Lane, Kermit Day, and Charles Scales.
Madam Speaker, in tribute to these men and their fight for equal
rights, it is proper for us, and it is indeed my honor, to formally
recognize the Mare Island Original 21ers, and thank them for their
heroic actions.

____________________

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE UDALL-EISENHOWER ARCTIC WILDERNESS ACT

______

HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act
honors two great American visionaries by designating the coastal plain
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness in their names and
giving permanent protection to this great unspoiled wild place.
Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower began the bipartisan legacy
of fighting to protect this majestic area for future generations of
Americans when he set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. Twenty
years later, in 1980, Democratic Representative Morris Udall succeeded
in doubling

[[Page 354]]

the size of the Refuge, protecting even more of this untrammeled
wilderness from oil drilling.
President Eisenhower and Morris Udall had the vision to protect a
remote but very special piece of pristine wilderness. I am proud to
introduce legislation today along with Representative Jim Ramstad of
Minnesota that would complete the job they began by giving permanent
protection to the coastal plain of the Refuge.
I am also proud to introduce this legislation under the bill number
H.R. 39, a bill number with important historical significance in the
effort to preserve the land within the Arctic Refuge. H.R. 39 was the
bill number given to Mo Udall's Alaska Natural Interest Lands
Conservation Act that became law in 1980, expanding the area President
Eisenhower had set aside and renaming it as the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. Representative Udall later began introducing his
legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Refuge as wilderness
under that same bill number. This bill number offers an important
reminder of the history of this special place.
The coastal plain is the biological heart of the Refuge and is
central to the survival of many unique species of animals including
caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and over 160 species of birds.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the ``center
for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. If we were to allow drilling in
the Refuge it would irreparably disrupt this important ecosystem and
one of our last great wild places will be forever scared and destroyed.
In this last year, we have seen so-called ``environmentally-gentle''
oil drilling exposed once and for all as the myth that it is. On March
2, 2006, BP workers discovered a quarter-inch hole in a pipeline on
Alaska's North Slope that had leaked 267,000 gallons of oil onto the
arctic tundra. That recent spill was the largest in the history of the
North Slope. Subsequent spills led to the discovery that BP had grossly
mismanaged and severely neglected its pipelines and North Slope oil
drilling operations, which had previously been touted by drilling
proponents as the best and most technologically advanced in the world.
The reality is that drilling for oil is a dirty business and opening
the Arctic Refuge to drilling would forever ruin this untouched special
place.
Moreover, if we were to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the
crown jewel of the Wildlife Refuge System, it would represent a
colossal shift in the policy and precedent governing our wildlife
refuges. Prying open the Arctic Refuge for drilling would set a
dangerous precedent that would allow the oil companies to select any of
the other 544 as the next target for oil drilling.
The Bush administration has argued that we have no choice--that we
are so dependent on oil that we must start defiling our wildlife refuge
system to keep feeding our oil addiction. That is wrong. We have a
choice, a better choice, and it is about time that we enact real
changes in our energy policy by focusing on conservation rather than
seeking to drill for a few short months worth of oil in this pristine
refuge.
The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but controls
only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We cannot drill our way out
of our dependence on foreign oil but we can choose to harness our
technologic genius to do something real about our dependence on oil.
Two-thirds of the oil we consume everyday in the U.S. goes into the
gas tanks of our cars, trucks and SUVs. From an energy standpoint,
drilling in the Refuge is completely unnecessary. If our cars, trucks
and SUVs traveled just 3 miles more per gallon today, we would save
more oil than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would
produce at its peak levels of production. But more than that, if we
increased fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon over 10 years,
we would save more oil within 15 years than we would be able to get out
of the Arctic Refuge over its entire 40-50-year production life.
The oil fields on the North Slope already annually produce more air
pollution and greenhouse gases than the municipality of Washington,
D.C. and the Arctic is showing the strains of global warming.
Just this last month, the Bush Interior Department proposed listing
the Polar Bear as an ``endangered species'' because global warming
appears to be so drastically affecting its habitat--particularly the
summer ice floes needed to hunt--that the bears are drowning far from
shore when the floating ice melts. Last week scientists confirmed that
a giant ice shelf--the Ayles Ice Shelf--snapped off of its land anchor
just 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic. This is
a feature of the Arctic landscape that is thousands of years old. The
remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first
discovered in 1906.
Our addiction to oil is real and enduring and still largely
untreated. Drilling in the refuge would amount to a declaration that we
remain in denial about this addiction, its impact on our planet and our
obligation to future generations.
If Congress were to ever turn the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge
into an industrial footprint by allowing oil drilling, the impact on
the land and the wildlife would be permanent but the hoped-for energy
benefits only temporary. There are some places in our world that are so
rare and so special, that we have a responsibility to protect them. The
Arctic Refuge is one of those places. As Mo Udall said, ``In our
lifetime, we have few opportunities to shape the very Earth on which
our descendants will live their lives. In each generation, we have
carved up more and more of our once-great natural heritage. There ought
to be a few places left in the world the way the Almighty made them.''
The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act would ensure that the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge is never carved up by the big oil companies
but is instead forever protected for future Americans.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE CALLING FOR 2-1-1 ACT OF 2007

______

HON. LEE TERRY

of nebraska

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Calling for
2-1-1 Act of 2007. I am proud to lend my support as an original
cosponsor of this bill, which was introduced today by my colleague, Ms.
Eshoo of California. I would also like to note a concern I have with
the bill as introduced, which I hope will be resolved prior to a vote
in the full House of Representatives.
2-1-1 is the number designated by the Federal Communications
Commission to provide citizens with information and referral about
important community services and volunteer opportunities. United Way
and its affiliates operate more than 200 call centers in 41 states
nationwide, including my home state of Nebraska. About two-thirds of
American citizens currently have access to 2-1-1 referrals. The Calling
for 2-1-1 Act will help achieve nationwide coverage for all citizens.
More than 50 percent of the calls made to 2-1-1 call centers are
placed to meet basic needs such as food, heat, clothing and shelter for
citizens facing difficulty. 2-1-1 helps to keep citizens off long-term
government financial aid such as welfare and food stamps by meeting
immediate needs before they become crises. 2-1-1 also enhances homeland
security by serving as an emergency backup to 9-1-1 during natural
disasters and other crises.
In my Congressional District alone, almost 40,000 Nebraskans sought
information through 2-1-1 between November 2005 and October 2006. The
top needs were for assistance with utilities, rent, food, housing,
health and dental care, furniture and tax preparation. Thousands of
Nebraskans were able to obtain assistance from federal and non-profit
community service agencies because of the existence of 2-1-1.
2-1-1 was crucial during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. When 9-
1-1 emergency lines were inoperational, 2-1-1 stepped up to link
citizens in dire need with critical services, including emergency
medical care, food and housing, and crisis recovery and relocation
services nationwide. Volunteer organizations such as the Red Cross also
benefit from people who call 2-1-1 seeking opportunities to give back
to their communities. 2-1-1 meets critical needs and merits federal
aid, provided that additional protections are put in place before this
legislation is brought to a vote.
It was my privilege to work last year with Ms. Eshoo and Mrs. Clinton
in the Senate, as well as Mr. Pickering and Mr. Bilirakis in the House
of Representatives, to address important concerns for ``socially
sensitive'' referrals before bringing the Calling for 2-1-1 Act to a
vote. As Members of Congress with deep convictions for the protection
of human life, we drafted language to refer callers seeking pregnancy-
related services to public health departments.
This reasonable compromise was designed to ensure the 2-1-1
legislation does not become a vehicle for taxpayer funding of
controversial referrals such as abortion. Unfortunately, this important
language, which had been agreed upon by all parties, was not included
in the legislation introduced today. I look forward to working with my
Ms. Eshoo and my other colleagues to correct this situation.
If my concerns are not addressed, I would be forced to vote against
and actively fight against the legislation I have cosponsored and

[[Page 355]]

worked to enact into law, despite my strong support for increasing
access to 2-1-1 for more American citizens. The fact that I have again
cosponsored this legislation despite my concern is testament to the
good working relationship I have enjoyed with Ms. Eshoo and Ms.
Clinton, and which I trust will continue during this new Congress.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help this legislation
become law while ensuring it protects and upholds the sanctity of human
life.

____________________

IN HONOR OF UNIVERSITY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

______

HON. PETE SESSIONS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate University
Park Elementary School upon its receipt of the Department of
Education's prestigious Blue Ribbon School Award.
University Park Elementary School is among the first selected in the
2006 No Child Left Behind--Blue Ribbon Schools Program. It is among
only 250 schools nationwide honored for either superior academic
achievement or dramatic gains in student achievement.
The Blue Ribbon Award is a testament to the hard work and dedication
demonstrated by the students, parents, teachers, and administrators of
University Park Elementary. This Award also recognizes the values that
make the Highland Park Independent School District a beacon of academic
excellence.
It is my honor and privilege to recognize University Park Elementary
School for its outstanding achievement in preparing our children for
the challenges of tomorrow. May University Park Elementary School
continue to be a shining example of superior leadership and commitment
to excellence in education.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION FOR SWEARING IN CEREMONY

______

HON. MIKE ROGERS

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, please excuse my absence from
the formal House of Representatives swearing in ceremony today as I was
unavoidably detained while paying my respects to a fallen soldier from
my district at his funeral in Arlington National Cemetery. I appreciate
the opportunity to take my oath of office on my return to the U.S.
Capitol.

____________________

RECOGNIZING MATTHEW A. PILCH FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Matthew A.
Pilch, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 374, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Matthew has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Matthew has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Matthew A.
Pilch for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Matthew in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE PEOPLES BANK

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand before
you today to recognize the many accomplishments of Peoples Bank and
offer my congratulations on their 97th Anniversary in the Northwest
Indiana community. To commemorate this special occasion, Peoples Bank
will hold an anniversary celebration on Saturday, January 6, 2007, at
the Center for Visual and Performing Arts in Munster, Indiana.
Peoples Bank was established in 1910 and was organized with a focus
to meet the many needs of its consumers. Peoples Bank was originally
known as the First Polish National Building and Loan Association.
During that time, it was the main hub for church and social activities
in East Chicago, Indiana. Over several decades, the association's name
changed numerous times, and in 1989, it was renamed Peoples Bank.
Peoples Bank was the first savings and loan association to receive a
federal charter in East Chicago after the Great Depression. In the
1950s, the bank played an integral role in assisting former servicemen
to build or purchase homes through G.I. Loans. At this time, Peoples
Bank expanded its access to the Northwest Indiana community by moving
into a multi-office operation. The Woodmar section of Hammond was
chosen as the second office location for Peoples Bank.
It was during the 1960s that Peoples Bank added another branch
location in Merrillville. Due to the success of these initial offices,
additional branches were eventually established in the area, including
branches in Dyer, Munster, Schererville, and a second branch in
Merrillville. In the year 2000, Peoples Bank opened its eighth branch
location in Hobart.
With all of this expansion taking place, Peoples Bank introduced a
new corporate headquarters in 2003. Located on two acres, this four-
story building houses the many departments and offices necessary to
operate such a professional organization, where the customers always
come first.
Peoples Bank's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Mr. David
Bochnowski, has served as the leader of the organization since 1981,
after serving on the board since 1977. With his guidance, along with
all the hard work of the staff, Peoples Bank has continued to be an
active force in providing superior customer service and assistance to
all of Northwest Indiana.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other
distinguished colleagues join me in honoring and congratulating Peoples
Bank on their 97th Anniversary. Their dedication to the people of
Northwest Indiana and their constant efforts throughout the years are
worthy of the highest commendation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO YVONNE SCARLETT-GOLDEN

______

HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to
the late Honorable Yvonne Scarlett-Golden, Mayor of Daytona Beach,
Florida.
On Tuesday, December 5, this great pioneering lady succumbed to
cancer at the age of 80, even as she continued performing her duties as
the first female and African-American Mayor of that city. She was
buried with full honors in her native Daytona Beach on Wednesday,
December 13, surrounded by her six grandchildren, two brothers and a
bereaved constituency. Her untimely passing will truly leave a deep
void in our midst, especially in our state's African-American
leadership and among the august membership of the National League of
Cities, which looked up to Mayor Scarlett-Golden as one of Florida's
truly great mayors.
Affectionately called ``The Mayor,'' by her constituents and friends,
Mrs. Scarlett-Golden was one of the best and noblest of Florida's
leaders. She dedicated 38 years of her life toward championing the
education and academic achievements of Florida students and those who
came under her tutelage at the San Francisco (California) Unified
School District. She advocated comprehensive academics for her
students, along with scholastic projects designed to help students at
the junior and senior college levels. Mrs. Scarlett-Golden believed
that education was the best way for children of the poor to achieve and
serve as responsible and productive citizens.
A native of Daytona Beach, Mayor Scarlett-Golden obtained her early
education at Daytona Beach's Campbell and Kaiser Laboratory School. She
went on to get her Bachelor's degree, graduating with Honors from
Bethune-Cookman College (B-CC), and later on obtained her Master's
Degree in Education from

[[Page 356]]

Boston University. In 1999, her alma mater (B-CC) conferred upon her
the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.
Former Congresswoman Carrie P. Meek, a longtime friend, said of her,
``Yvonne was an incredible woman who achieved a tremendous amount in
her life. She took on challenges and she was a real fighter. I never
would've guessed the end was so near for my dear friend.'' ``She lived
everyday as though her incredible life was never going to end.''
This public servant was a multi-dimensional leader, an indefatigable
community-builder, and a loving mother and grandmother. Her leadership
was truly admirable. Mrs. Scarlett-Golden was a faithful steward of
Daytona Beach. She was God's faithful servant, bringing hope and
optimism to thousands of ordinary folks whose lives she touched so
deeply, never holding anyone at arm's length. This remarkable lady was
a friend of the family. She was my confidante, and I was blessed to
have her as my god-mother. Indeed, for me, she will serve as an
indelible reminder of the noble commitment and awesome power of public
service on behalf of the less fortunate. Her faith was deep and
resolute and she was blessed with a sunny disposition and enviable
optimism. She will be truly missed.
She taught us the virtues of hope, optimism and faith during her
earthly sojourn. This is the wonderful legacy Mayor Yvonne Scarlett-
Golden left behind. And this is the gift with which she blesses us now.

____________________

INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING INITIATIVE

______

HON. DAVID DREIER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the Inland
Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative, to authorize water
recycling projects under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI
program. This legislation, which passed the House in the 109th
Congress, is an important component of southern California's regional
water management.
The Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative authorizes $30 million
for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water
District to assist in constructing two water recycling projects. The
projects will produce nearly 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually to
the area's water supply. This initiative has the support of all member
agencies of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, which encompasses 240
square miles in southern California. It also serves a number of cities
I represent, including the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and
Montclair.
These water agencies are using high quality recycled water in many
water intensive applications, like landscape and agricultural
irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. This allows fresh
water to be conserved or used for drinking, which reduces our
dependence on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water
which would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, these agencies ensure
that we ring the last drop of use out of water before it is ultimately
returned to the environment.
It is imperative that we continue to approve measures preventing
water supply shortages in the Western United States. This recycling
initiative will help meet the water needs of the Inland Empire and
begin a strategic federal-local partnership to bring a significant
amount of new water supply to the region. In fact, the Bureau of
Reclamation has already recognized the Inland Empire Water Recycling
Initiative as one of the most cost effective water reuse projects.
The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support
of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies
downstream in Orange County. IEUA serves the cities of Chino, Chino
Hills, Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland,
Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga Valley Water
District), and the Monte Vista Water District.
I look forward to working closely with the House Resources Committee,
and with the new Water and Power Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace
Napolitano, who is a cosponsor of this bill and has been a champion of
regional water solutions. I am also pleased to have the continued
support of my colleagues, Ken Calvert and Gary Miller.

____________________

RECOGNIZING NICHOLAS J. PILCH FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Nicolas J.
Pilch, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 374, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Nicolas has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Nicolas has been involved with
Scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Nicolas J.
Pilch for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Nicolas in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE VERY REVEREND FATHER JOVAN TODOROVICH

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and
admiration that I congratulate the Very Reverend Father Jovan
Todorovich upon his retirement as parish priest at Saint Sava Serbian
Orthodox Church in Merrillville, Indiana. I can truly say throughout
his more than 36 years of service at Saint Sava, Father Todorovich has
been one of the most dedicated, distinguished, and committed citizens
of Indiana's First Congressional District. Northwest Indiana and Saint
Sava have certainly been rewarded by the true service and
uncompromising loyalty he has displayed to the parish and the entire
community.
Father Todorovich was born in Vratare, Serbia on July 5, 1940. From a
very young age, he was inspired by his faith and realized that a life
of service in the priesthood was his calling. In pursuit of his dream,
Father Todorovich eventually went on to complete his courses, earning a
Bachelor's Degree in Theological Studies at Saints Cyril and Methodius
Seminarian College in Prizen. Following the completion of his studies,
Father Todorovich emigrated to the United States of America in 1964. In
1965, due to his perseverance and dedication, Father Todorovich's
efforts came to fruition with his ordination into the priesthood.
Prior to joining the congregation at Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox
Church, while serving as parish priest for Saint George Church, Father
Todorovich served as the director of the Saint Sava Mission Summer Camp
program in California. Shortly thereafter, in 1970, he arrived at Saint
Sava Church, which was located in Gary, Indiana at the time. Early on
during his tenure as parish priest at Saint Sava, Father Todorovich's
abilities as a teacher and community leader began to emerge. It was
through his efforts at this time that many new members joined the
congregation, a new donation campaign was initiated, new church bylaws
were introduced, and the need for social gatherings and activities for
youth was realized.
When a fire destroyed the church in Gary, Father Todorovich led the
parishioners of Saint Sava to a new chapel in Hobart, Indiana, where
services were held until the construction of the current church,
located in Merrillville, Indiana, was completed. Subsequently, the new
church was consecrated in May 1991. Once again, with Father
Todorovich's leadership and committed efforts, as well as the vast
efforts of many parishioners, the people of Saint Sava were once again
able to come together with their spiritual leader and each other to
worship.
The new church's consecration, however, was not the only momentous
occasion at this time, as Father Todorovich was awarded the highest
honor, the Pectoral Cross with the title of Protojerej Stavrofor. To
further illustrate the high esteem in which Father Todorovich is held
by his parish and his community, in April 1993, he was appointed to the
distinguished position of Deputy to the Metropolitan.
Another of the many ways Father Todorovich has touched the lives of
so many people is through his writing. Father Todorovich is quite the
accomplished writer, having produced several literary works, including:
Patron Saint-Krsna Slava, Our Slava: A Manual on Confession and
Communion, and A Visitor's Guide to Saint Sava Church. He

[[Page 357]]

has also penned various articles for the Diocesan Observer, as well as
for Saint Sava's church bulletin.
Although his pastoral duties and many additional responsibilities
have required a vast amount of his time, what is most impressive is the
fact that Father Todorovich has never let his busy schedule keep him
from his greatest love, his family. Father Todorovich and his wife,
Protinica Mirijana, are the proud parents of three daughters, and they
have also been blessed with one grandchild.
Madam Speaker, America is a better place because of the tireless and
unselfish service of its citizens. Very Reverend Father Jovan
Todorovich is a man who has dedicated his entire life to serving
others, and he has been the truest example of morality and wisdom. In
so doing, he has strengthened his community and the whole of our
society. I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in
commending Very Reverend Father Jovan Todorovich for his lifetime of
enduring service and the unforgettable effect he has had on the people
of Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church and Northwest Indiana. I wish
Father Todorovich and his family well upon his retirement.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. MARTY R. PINKSTON

______

HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to
Dr. Marty R. Pinkston, a longtime and dear friend of my family and one
of our community's unsung heroines.
On Friday, December 15, 2006, her peers, friends and supporters will
honor her at a farewell dinner as she retires from her position as
Director of Governmental and Public Affairs at Florida Memorial
University.
A preeminent educator, Dr. Pinkston is affectionately known as
``Marty'' to her countless admirers and is truly one of the most
indomitable community activists of South Florida. Having dedicated a
major portion of her life to making the public educational system work
on behalf of Florida's minority and poor students, she has been
relentless in developing innovative educational programs that
succinctly responded to the needs of our community's underserved
college student population. Responsible for developing strategies to
secure additional resources for the university from local, state and
federal sources, Dr. Pinkston was unrelenting in her dedication to
providing quality education for all those willing to walk the extra
mile in pursuing their college degree.
Having received her bachelor's degree from Florida A&M University,
she went on to obtain her MA in Business Education from New York
Institute of Technology and her Doctorate in Education from Nova
Southeastern University. She complimented her educational achievements
with her chairmanship of the Metro-Miami Action Plan Trust and service
on the United Way of Miami-Dade County and the Miami-Dade Chamber of
Commerce, as well as on the Metro-Dade County Safe Neighborhoods Parks
Oversight Committee.
Dr. Pinkston epitomizes an admirable spirit of compassion and her
concern for the less fortunate in our society will forever be lauded.
But she is more than that. Dr. Marty Pinkston is remarkable not just
for her energy, achievements and leadership, but because of the kind of
person that she is. People are naturally attracted to her. The day just
goes better if you get the chance to spend some time with Marty
Pinkston.
As one of those hardy spirits who conscientiously chose to reach out
to the less fortunate, Dr. Pinkston thoroughly understood how
leadership could truly change people's lives. She wisely exercised her
leadership and politic skills, alongside the mandate of her conviction
and the wisdom of her knowledge. The crucial role she played all these
years in developing the winning strategy for many a successful
candidate for elective office evokes a genuine insight borne out of
experience and expertise. She would often say that the accolades are
not that important at all. Instead, she would note that what is
important is that our community receives the recognition of its
strength and promise amidst the tremendous challenges it has had to
undertake all through the years.
It is an honor to have the the privilege of knowing this gentle and
caring leader. I salute Dr. Marty R. Pinkston, a very dear friend, on
behalf of a grateful community that she truly loves and cares for. Now,
in retirement, she embarks upon new challenges in life and I am certain
her legacy of greatness will only grow and develop as she enters this
new phase of life. I wish her every happiness and success.

____________________

SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND

______

HON. DAVID DREIER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that
will continue to provide safe drinking water to Southern California. In
2000, Congress created the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund after the
discovery of perchlorate and other harmful contaminants in the basin's
groundwater. The fund initially authorized $85 million in federal
funding to assist the state and local government agencies as well as
the private companies found responsible for the contamination to
effectively implement a comprehensive clean up plan that would protect
the safety of our region's drinking water supply. After evaluation, it
is evident that an increase in this authorization is necessary.
Therefore, I am introducing legislation to amend the original
authorization by increasing the total amount by $50 million.
The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA) has done a
tremendous job in administering the clean up program. In 1999, the WQA
projected the cost of cleaning up the San Gabriel Basin at a total of
$320 million based on the level of contamination of the five original
Operable Units of Baldwin Park, El Monte, South El Monte, Whittier
Narrows and Puente Valley. Since the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund
was authorized by Congress in 2000, dramatically increased
contamination levels have been identified in the South El Monte and
Puente Valley Operable Units. This discovery has significantly
increased both the capitol and operation and maintenance costs of the
projects. With the cost of inflation, increased energy costs and the
higher contamination levels found, the total cost is now estimated at
$1 billion. Significantly, the WQA has a number of treatment plants
that are already operating at full capacity with more coming on line in
the near future.
The San Gabriel Groundwater Basin covers more than 160 square miles
in Los Angeles County and is the primary source of drinking water for
over 1.2 million people. Furthermore, natural groundwater flows from
the San Gabriel Basin are allowing the contamination to spread into the
Central Groundwater Basin, a vast 277 square-mile underground aquifer
that provides drinking water to over half of Los Angeles County.
In working with the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over the
past decade on this regional solution, there is no doubt that this
increase is warranted and will be utilized in the most effective way to
continue to provide safe drinking water.
I look forward to working closely with the House Resources Committee,
and with the new Water and Power Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace
Napolitano, who is a cosponsor of this bill and has been a champion of
regional water solutions. I am also pleased to have the support of my
colleagues Adam Schiff, Hilda Solis and Gary Miller, who are cosponsors
of this legislation.

____________________

RECOGNIZING ZACHARY R. BODE FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Zachary R.
Bode, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities
of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy
Scouts of America, Troop 395, and in earning the most prestigious award
of Eagle Scout.
Zachary has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Zachary has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Zachary R.
Bode for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his
efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.
I am honored to represent Zachary in the United States House of
Representatives.

[[Page 358]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MR. DALE ENGQUIST

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure
that I stand before you today to recognize the many years of dedicated
service of Mr. Dale Engquist. Having known Dale for many years, I can
truly say that he is one of the most committed, knowledgeable, and
honorable citizens in Northwest Indiana. Nowhere has his knowledge and
commitment been more evident than in his faithful service to the
National Park Service (NPS), and more specifically, to the Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore. Dale has served the Northwest Indiana
community for the past 28 years, and his service to the NPS has spanned
an astonishing 42 years. For many years, Dale has been a constant
fixture at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for his efforts,
he will be honored at a retirement party on Tuesday, January 9, 2007,
at the Lubeznik Center for the Arts in Michigan City, Indiana.
Following a summer position at Wind Cave National Park in South
Dakota, Dale Engquist began his professional career with the NPS in
1964 at the National Capital Parks in Washington, DC. From there, Dale
went on to serve as Chief Park Naturalist at Hot Springs National Park
in Arkansas and then Assistant Chief Park Naturalist at Everglades
National Park in Florida. Following his departure from Everglades
National Park in 1971, Dale accepted his first Superintendent position
at the Biscayne National Monument in Florida. After moving on to other
managerial positions in New Jersey and Washington, DC, Dale settled in
Northwest Indiana in 1978, where he served as Assistant Superintendent
of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore until January 1983. At that
time, Dale was named to the distinguished position of Superintendent of
the National Lakeshore, a position he has held for the past 24 years.
Over the years, Dale has maintained this post, and he has done so with
a selfless commitment to nature and to the community. Dale's education,
knowledge, and experience with the NPS have made him successful and
respected in all of the positions he has held.
Indisputably, Dale Engquist has been extremely successful throughout
his career with the NPS. To attest to this fact, Dale has been the
recipient of numerous accolades and awards for merit and dedication. In
1987, he was awarded the Park Planning and Design Award for excellence
in park design, as well as the Richard G. Lugar Award for recognition
as an outstanding federal employee in the state of Indiana. In
addition, Dale has also been honored with the 1991 Superintendent of
the Year & Resource Stewardship Award, the National Park Service's 75th
Anniversary Director's Award, the Sagamore of the Wabash, the
Meritorious Service Award by then-Secretary of the Interior Bruce
Babbitt, the Polish Cavalry Cross of Merit, and the Chicago Wilderness
Excellence in Conservation Award.
Though it may be difficult to imagine where he finds the time, Dale
has always been involved in several associations and organizations,
including: the Association of National Park Rangers, the Eastern
National Parks & Monument Association, the National Park & Recreation
Association, the Indiana Park & Recreation Association, the Indiana
Historical Society, the National Audubon Society, and Rotary
International.
Madam Speaker, Dale Engquist has devoted himself to improving and
preserving the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and serving the people
of Northwest Indiana throughout his many years of service. At this
time, I ask that you and all of my distinguished colleagues join me in
commending him for his lifetime of service and dedication.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

______

HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise in solidarity with
the Miami-Dade County Public Schools on the occasion of National World
AIDS Day. Miami-Dade County Public Schools are working hard within my
community to provide much-needed prevention information, as well as
assistance to those afflicted with the HIV/AIDS virus.
Indeed, the National World AIDS Day evokes once again a special
opportunity for the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, my North Dade
constituents and the larger Miami-Dade County and South Florida
communities to renew our collective and individual commitment to find a
cure for this treatable and preventable disease. As we remember in our
prayers those who passed on, as well as reach out to those who need our
help, we are reminded of the urgency to fight against the spread of
this virus. Despite the best efforts of our AIDS-support community
organizations, in concert with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools,
HIV/AIDS continues to be a devastating disease. I commend our health
care professionals, the volunteers from our community organizations,
and our schools, who together exemplify a symbol of strength and
resilience in a way that combines true professionalism and utmost
compassion along the tradition of our stewardship for one another.
The leadership of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools is readily
focused on providing the opportunities of outreach information and
ongoing education in a way that advances the common good of our fellow
human beings, especially those who are suffering from the effects of
the AIDS disease.
Despite the strategies and activities that organizations of good-will
have utilized to combat this virus, we are still saddled with the fact
that the pace of the AIDS infection is staggering. According to recent
statistics from the World Health Organization, the past year alone has
seen more infection and death from HIV/AIDS than ever before.
Of the estimated 18,371 AIDS-related deaths in the United States in
2006, approximately 52 percent were from the Black community. According
to the Centers for Disease Control, Blacks accounted for 54 percent of
all new diagnoses of HIV/AIDS. In Florida, HIV/AIDS is the leading
cause of death among Black males and females, aged 25 to 44 years old.
According to the Florida Department of Health, over half of all people
living with HIV/ AIDS in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties are Black.
As we celebrate National World AIDS Day in light of these agonizing
facts, we must put forth a much more aggressive and concerted effort to
reach out to our communities, teaching our residents about this
disease, insure proper treatment for AIDS victims and continue the
research needed to bring this epidemic under control. This infectious
disease should not be a partisan issue, but should be a commitment for
all Americans. We can and we must address the HIV/AIDS epidemic
aggressively, both at home and abroad.
I encourage everyone in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties and beyond to
get tested; get informed about prevention and get treatment if you need
it. Let's all renew our efforts to stop the spread of this dreaded
disease and, as a caring community, reach out to those of our fellow
residents who are already living with HIV/AIDS. I commend the Miami-
Dade County Public Schools for their leadership role in raising the
awareness level about HIV/AIDS and encourage school administrators,
faculty, staff and students to continue with this most laudable effort.

____________________

RECOGNIZING CHARLES C. CROWE, IV FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Charles C.
Crowe, IV, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 395, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Charles has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Charles has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Charles C.
Crowe, IV for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Charles in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

COMMENDING LEE BANDY

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, last month, the dean of
South Carolina political reporters, Lee Bandy, announced

[[Page 359]]

his retirement from The State newspaper. Bandy joined The State in
1966, serving as Washington correspondent and bureau chief before
relocating to Columbia. I well remember him giving me a tour of
Congressional offices when I was a Senate intern in 1967.
I have known and worked with Lee extensively during my years in South
Carolina politics. While his departure marks the end of an era, I know
Lee will continue to exert tremendous influence on the South Carolina
political scene.
At a recent meeting of Midlands First Tuesday Club, I presented Lee a
Certificate of Achievement on behalf of Congress.
On December 14, 2006, The State's Aaron Gould Sheinin penned the
following article marking Bandy's retirement:

After 40 Years and 3,000 Columns, The State's Lee Bandy is Retiring

Hailed as a legend by colleagues and a mover and shaker by
sources, reporter has kept finger on pulse of S.C. politics
Legendary political reporter and columnist Lee Bandy will
retire at the end of the year after 40 years with The State
newspaper.
Bandy, 71, has been with the newspaper since 1966. He
started as Washington correspondent, then served as
Washington bureau chief. He moved to Columbia in January
1992.
While Bandy will retire from day-to-day reporting, he will
continue writing his weekly Sunday column at least through
2007.
During a luncheon in his honor Wednesday at the newspaper,
Bandy told his colleagues, ``I've met a lot of fascinating
people, and I might add I've worked with some wonderful
people. You've been a source of inspiration to me.''
As the top political reporter in South Carolina, Bandy
often is sought out by politicians looking for a positive
mention in his Sunday column. During Wednesday's lunch, in
fact, potential 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards left
a phone message for Bandy congratulating him on his coming
retirement.
During 40 years of writing his column, Bandy never missed a
week. He said he estimates he's written 3,000 columns. Each
column is about 800 words. That's more than 2 million words,
``and that's more than enough for anybody,'' Bandy said.
David Broder, longtime political reporter for The
Washington Post, said Bandy was a legend in the Senate Press
Gallery in Washington. Broder still occasionally calls Bandy
to get the pulse of South Carolina politics.
``He's enormously generous and helpful and tells you
stories you would never hear from any other source,'' Broder
said.
Former S.C. Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, called Bandy
his friend and said, ``No one has become president of the
United States without crossing his path in 40 years, and no
one has had an impact on South Carolina government that
hasn't dealt with Lee Bandy.''
A native of Asheville, Bandy is a graduate of Bob Jones
University. He is a member of the exclusive Gridiron Club of
Washington journalists. He and his wife, Mary, have two sons,
Ryan and Michael, a daughter, Alexa, and two grandchildren,
Sophia and Nathaniel. They are members of First Presbyterian
Church in Columbia and live in Forest Acres.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

______

HON. BOB GOODLATTE

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that
will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in
spending by balancing the federal budget.
It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more
than they have--yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has
been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to
the bottom line.
Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with
the dollars that our nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must
work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of
value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all
across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each
day about what they can and cannot afford, corporate officers are
required to act in the best interests of their shareholders when using
company resources, and government officials should be held to similar
standards when spending the hard-earned dollars of our nation's
citizens.
Congress took a dramatic step forward last year when it passed the
Deficit Reduction Act. This new law found savings of approximately $40
billion over the next five years by eliminating wasteful spending and
programs. This legislation was an important first step, but it was just
that--a first step. Furthermore, the legislation was passed by the
Senate by a margin of just one vote and was passed by the House by a
margin of two votes, which shows exactly how difficult the task of
balancing the budget is--and how important it is to force Congress to
do so.
In the 109th Congress, we were fortunate to have a majority in the
House and Senate that had an appetite for reining in spending but we
stil have to make considerable strides to achieve a balanced budget.
Only time will tell whether future Congresses will have this appetite
as well. However, one thing is certain--if we pass an amendment to the
U.S. Constitution that requires a balanced budget, Congress will have
to act accordingly regardless of which party is in control in
Washington, D.C. This is exactly why I am introducing this legislation
today.
My legislation would amend the Constitution to require that total
spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts and require the
president to propose budgets to Congress that are balanced each year.
It would also provide an exception in times of military conflicts that
pose imminent and serious military threats to national security.
Furthermore, the legislation would make it harder to increase taxes
by requiring that legislation to increase revenue must be passed by a
true majority of each chamber and not just a majority of those present
and voting. Finally, the bill requires a \3/5\ majority vote for any
increases in the debt limit.
This concept is not new. Forty-nine out of fifty States have a
balanced budget requirement.
It has become clear that it is extremely difficult for Congress to
agree on a budget that is fiscally responsible. By amending the
Constitution to require a balanced budget, we can force Congress to
control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and
ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big
spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in
doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is
not their own.
Yesterday, President Bush also highlighted the importance of a
balanced federal budget by announcing his plan to present Congress with
a budget proposal that will balance the budget by 2012. I applaud the
President for his announcement and look forward to working with him to
bring fiscal responsibility back to the federal government.
Our nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and
Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than
to make difficult decisions about spending priorities. Unless Congress
is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget,
it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this
responsibility. The Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment is a
common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same
fiscal principles that America's families face each day.
I urge support of this important legislation.

____________________

RECOGNIZING CHARLES T. ORTMAN FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Charles T.
Ortman, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 395, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Charles has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Charles has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Charles T.
Ortman for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Charles in the United States House of
Representatives.

[[Page 360]]

____________________

THE TEAM (TO ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVELY-FUELED VEHICLE MANUFACTURING) UP
FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT

______

HON. ZOE LOFGREN

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, climate change
threatens the security and stability of our planet. The temperature of
the earth is increasing at a rate unseen in modern times and is
starting to melt the polar ice caps and disrupt weather patterns.
Unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by
automobiles and industries, with about one-fourth of the world's carbon
dioxide emissions being produced by the United States, have led to
current rates of warming.
Historically high gas prices and political instability in oil
producing regions reinforce the need for the United States to secure
our energy independence. We can make real progress by developing and
distributing alternatively fueled vehicles. Through innovation and
existing technology, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and
promote energy efficiency and conservation to secure a safe future for
our country and the environment.
Alternatively fueled vehicles, such as those that use E85 ethanol
fuel, could reduce our use of petroleum fuels by up to 40%, helping our
country move towards sustainable energy independence. E85 ethanol fuel
can be produced from agricultural products grown here in the United
States, so that money spent on fuel supports farmers in the Midwest,
not countries in the Middle East. Corn may not be the only answer to
biofuels, as other sources of energy such as switchgrass or other
renewable starch re-sources are also on the horizon.
Congress must do more to make alternative fueled vehicles practical
and accessible to every American. There are currently only six million
E85-capable vehicles on U.S. roads, compared to approximately 230
million gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, according to the National
Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. Only 993 fuel stations in the entire country
currently provide E85 fuel, and only four of these are located in
California.
That is why I am again introducing this bill to encourage consumers
and manufacturers to develop the infrastructure necessary for a cleaner
energy future. We must do more to make alternatively fueled vehicles
practical and accessible to everyone. The cost of producing flex fuel
capable vehicles is minimal at the time of manufacture, but there are
currently few incentives for the production of flex fuel vehicles and a
lack of infrastructure to service them.
My bill will encourage the production of more alternatively fueled
vehicles by phasing in a tax penalty on the manufacture or import of
new, non-flex fuel vehicles. However, since the cost to convert fleets
to flex fuel is nearly nil, it will be easy for manufacturers or
importers to avoid these costs completely. Any revenues generated would
be used to help independent gas station owners install alternative fuel
equipment.
I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for her hard work and dedication
to increase investment in renewable energy and ultimately achieving
energy independence. I hope this bill can be a part of the crucial
national dialogue towards securing our energy independence and helping
America move towards a more secure and sustainable future.

____________________

COMMENDING JOAN COUNTRYMAN

______

HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

of rhode island

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Joan Countryman,
who recently became the head of the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy
for Girls in South Africa. In 2005, Ms. Countryman stepped down as head
of the prestigious Lincoln School for girls in Providence, Rhode
Island.
Ms. Countryman, a Quaker, began her career first as a math teacher
and then as an administrator at the Germantown Friends School in
Philadelphia, which she attended as a student. She received a
bachelor's degree from Sarah Lawrence College in 1962, and after taking
part in the civil rights movement, she received a master's degree in
urban studies from Yale. In 1966, Ms. Countryman received a Fulbright
fellowship to the London School of Economics. She is also a former
Columbia University Klingenstein Fellow and a Woodrow Wilson Fellow.
Ms. Countryman is also the author of works such as her 1992 book,
Writing to Learn Mathematics, in which she explained how she approached
the teaching of math by using such tools as journals, learning logs,
and formal papers.
Before asking Ms. Countryman to head her new academy, Oprah Winfrey
first asked her to lend her experience and expertise as a consultant.
Oprah Winfrey founded the Leadership Academy with the goal of targeting
South African girls from poor families and giving them an educational
opportunity that they would otherwise not have received. Beginning with
152 girls in the seventh and eighth grades, the academy has a goal of
expanding through grade 12.
I know that Joan Countryman will institute a welcoming and
challenging school environment at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy.
Rhode Island was honored to have Ms. Countryman as an educator for
twelve years, and the girls in South Africa will be lucky to have her
there now.
Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join with me in wishing
Joan Countryman well in her new endeavor, as well as success to the
Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy.

____________________

RECOGNIZING JONATHAN VERNICKAS FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Jonathan
Vernickas, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 214, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Jonathan has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Jonathan has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Jonathan
Vernickas for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Jonathan in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

HONORING JOHN CASE, CHAIRMAN OF THE PACE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

______

HON. JUDY BIGGERT

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank John Case for his
eight years of service as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors.
Under John's leadership, numerous improvements were instituted to North
America's 6th largest bus system, resulting in better service for
millions of Americans living in the Chicagoland area.
It is no surprise that John was chosen to serve as Chairman of the
Board--he has a long history of serving his community and nation. As a
retired United States Air Force Major with twenty years of service,
including in the third bomber wing during the Korean War, he brought
many valuable skills to his role as Chairman. His experience is evident
in the many improvements he instituted. These include developing Board
Committees to handle specific decision areas, implementing use of
biodiesel in the Pace bus fleet, doubling the size of Pace's vanpool
program, ensuring that retirement funds are being adequately funded,
and implementation of the Intelligent Bus System, which provides real-
time information on bus locations, ridership and on-time performance.
John is a dedicated public servant. For more than forty years, he has
served his community in many public roles. He began his public career
in Lisle Township--located in the 13th District of Illinois, which I
represent--and, since then, has held the position of Township Trustee
and Supervisor for Lisle Township. In Dupage County, in which Lisle
Township resides, he has served as a DuPage County Board Member, County
Board Chairman, and Forest Preserve President.
Once again, I would like to congratulate and thank John Case on his
eight successful years as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors and
for all he has done for his community.

[[Page 361]]

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE GERALD W. HEANEY FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES
COURTHOUSE AND CUSTOMHOUSE ACT

______

HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of a bill to name the
Federal building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse in
Duluth, Minnesota, in honor of Judge Gerald W. Heaney. Judge Heaney was
appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th
Circuit on November 3, 1966. After 40 years of distinguished judicial
service, Judge Heaney retired on August 31, 2006.
Judge Heaney was born on January 29, 1918, in Goodhue, a rural
community in the southeastern part of Minnesota. As a child growing up
in a farming community, Judge Heaney learned the value of a close
family, honesty, and hard work. These qualities have marked not only
his personal life but also his life as a public servant. He was
educated at the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, and
received his law degree from the University of Minnesota in 1941.
Gerry Heaney is a decorated World War II veteran. He was a member of
the distinguished Army Ranger Battalion and participated in the
historic D-Day landing at Normandy. He was awarded the Silver Star for
extraordinary bravery in the battle of La Pointe du Hoc in Normandy,
France. He also received a Bronze Star and five battle stars.
At the end of the war, Judge Heaney returned home and entered private
practice in Duluth. During that time he was instrumental in improving
the state education system, and served on the Board of Regents of the
University of Minnesota. He was instrumental in helping the Duluth
school system develop a payroll system that equalized the pay for both
men and women.
In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Heaney to the 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals. In that capacity, Judge Heaney has been a champion of
protecting the rights of the disadvantaged. He is devoted to making
sure that every person has an equal opportunity for an education, a
job, and a home. He firmly believes the poor, the less educated, and
less advantaged deserve the protections provided by the United States
Constitution.
As a hardworking, well-prepared, and fair-minded jurist, Judge Heaney
left his legal imprimatur on school desegregation cases, bankruptcy
law, prisoner treatment, and social security law.
His public service is discerned by industry, brilliance, and
scholarly excellence. His compassion and dedication to our most
disadvantaged are unparalleled.
It is fitting and proper for Congress to designate the Duluth,
Minnesota Federal Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse
in honor of Judge Gerald W. Heaney.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

____________________

RECOGNIZING ADAM ZELLER FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Adam Zeller,
a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities of
citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts
of America, Troop 180, and in earning the most prestigious award of
Eagle Scout.
Adam has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout
activities. Over the many years Adam has been involved with scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Adam Zeller
for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his
efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.
I am honored to represent Adam in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE MAKE COLLEGE AFFORDABLE ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to help millions of Americans afford
higher education by introducing the Make College Affordable Act of
2007, which makes college tuition tax deductible. Today the average
cost of education at a state university is $12,796 per year, and the
cost of education at a private university is $30,367 per year! These
high costs have left many middle class American families struggling to
afford college for their children, who are often ineligible for
financial aid. Therefore, middle class students have no choice but to
obtain student loans, and thus leave college saddled with massive debt.
Even families who plan and save well in advance for their children's
education may have a difficult time because their savings are eroded by
taxation and inflation. The Make College Affordable Act will help these
middle class students by allowing them, or their parents or guardians
who claim them as dependents, to deduct the cost of college tuition as
well as the cost of student loan repayments.
The Make College Affordable Act will also help older or
nontraditional students looking to improve their job skills or prepare
for a career change, by pursuing higher education. In today's economy,
the average American worker can expect to change jobs, and even
careers, several times during his or her working life, making it more
important than ever that working Americans be able to devote their
resources to continuing their educations.
Helping the American people use their own money to ensure every
qualified American can receive a college education is one of the best
investments this Congress can make in the future. I therefore urge my
colleagues to help strengthen America by ensuring more Americans can
obtain college educations by cosponsoring the Make College Affordable
Act.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LT. COL. D.B. RICHWINE, JR.

______

HON. KEN CALVERT

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, we open the 110th Congress, I rise today
to honor a fine American and a devoted public servant and to
congratulate him on a significant achievement. Donald Bowen Richwine,
Jr. serves our Nation as a Marine Corps Officer and served the Congress
as a Congressional Fellow in my office from December 2003 to December
2004. Recently he served our Nation's ongoing efforts in the Global War
on Terror by his exemplary conduct in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM from
October 2005 to April 2006. As a result of his devotion to duty and
excellence as an officer, Bowen was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant
Colonel on January 3, 2007 in a ceremony at the National Museum of the
Marine Corps. Additionally, Bowen was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for
his meritorious achievement in connection with combat operations
against the enemy as Department of Border Enforcement Coordinator. The
formal citation for this Medal follows below. I heartily congratulate
Lt. Col. Richwine on his promotion and the recognition of his
meritorious achievement. I share the pride felt by his wife Angela and
their children, Owen and Charlie, at this time in Bowen's career.
For meritorious achievement in connection with combat operations
against the enemy as Department of Border Enforcement Coordinator, II
Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) and I Marine Expeditionary Force
(Forward), in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM 04-06 and 05-07 from
October 2005 to April 2006. During this period, Major Richwine was
directly responsible for the development of Iraqi border forces along
over 1000 kilometers of Iraq's borders. Coordinating movements of
border forces, border fort construction, and Border Transition Teams,
his determined efforts led to the strategically significant restoration
of Iraq's borders on 30 November 2005. Identifying a significant
problem at the Ports of Entry, Major Richwine developed an innovative
plan involving the creation of a multi-agency task force formed to
train, advise, and mentor the forces at the Ports of Entry. Ultimately
this solution was briefed to the Commanding General Multi National
Forces-Iraq who decided to duplicate this idea at other locations
throughout Iraq. Finally, displaying an unusually prescient grasp on
the mechanisms needed to grow new units, Major Richwine on his own
initiative and despite the absence of Military Occupational Specialty
Schools for the border police, sought out school seats at Ministry of
Defense schools across Iraq. His vigorous efforts have led to the very
first school trained Iraqi Border Police, giving them critical

[[Page 362]]

life support capabilities which will permit them to develop logistics
systems that will support their force long after the Coalition Forces
depart Iraq. Major Richwine's total effectiveness, forceful leadership,
and loyal devotion to duty reflected great credit upon him and upheld
the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval
Service.

____________________

RECOGNIZING MR. TED NELSON

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Mr. Ted
Nelson of Liberty, Missouri. Ted served in the United States Navy. He
fought for our country during the Korean War.
Mr. Nelson enlisted in the United States Navy before he had the
opportunity to graduate from high school. He continued to serve in the
Navy during the Korean War. He served honorably and returned to
Liberty, Missouri. Mr. Nelson recently received his high school diploma
from the Marcus School District in Marcus, Iowa.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in recognizing Mr. Ted
Nelson. His many years of distinguished service and commitment to
serving his country have been an inspiration. I commend him for his
service, and I am honored to represent him in the United States
Congress.

____________________

HONORING PRESIDENT GERALD FORD

______

HON. JOHN L. MICA

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, with the passing of President Gerald Ford
our Nation, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Ford Family have
lost a leader, a respected colleague and a loved one who was very
special to their lives.
Few American leaders of our time have gained the admiration and
appreciation so well deserved and earned by our 38th President. While
our country has lost a distinguished leader and the Congress has lost a
distinguished Member, Gerald Ford's life and public service will always
remain a model for future generations.
In October of 1999, I had the pleasure to quietly sit and speak with
President Ford at the conclusion of a Capitol Hill reception that was
held after he was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal in the
Capitol Rotunda. While I had met him before, what struck me on this
special occasion was how such a great man receiving the highest honor
from our Nation and Congress could be so humble, so gracious and so
genuine.
How memorable it was for me to spend that special time with that
gentle man and great American. How fitting it was that Gerald Ford
returned this week to the Capitol and the Congress he loved. While this
gentle man belongs to the ages, he will always share a special place in
our hearts and fond memories.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JOHN ABIJAH DAVIS

______

HON. STENY H. HOYER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark an important milestone
in the life of one of my fellow Marylanders--John Abijah Davis--who
today celebrates his 100th birthday.
John Abijah Davis was born January 4, 1907 in an upstairs bedroom of
his parent's house on North Sherman Drive in Indianapolis, Indiana--a
home built by his Uncle, Issac Davis. Named after another Uncle, John
Davis, and his father, Abijah Alley Davis, John A. Davis grew up in
that home, attending St. Phillip Neri school and parish, before moving
on to Cathedral High School in 1920, graduating in 1924 with the first
full four-year class in school history.
John Davis graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1928 with a
BA in English. At school, he counted among his friends Walter ``Red''
Smith, later a Pulitzer Prize winning sports columnist for the New York
Times, Miller Brewing Company heir Fred Miller and Howard Phelan, who
later in life donated the famous ``Touchdown Jesus'' mural that adorns
the facade of the school library overlooking the football stadium.
In 1934, John A. Davis married Virginia Lyon in Notre Dame's historic
Log Chapel in a mass presided over by his cousin, Rev. John O'Hara,
then president of Notre Dame. In 1936, John and Virginia had a
daughter, Mary Elizabeth Davis.
Moving from Indiana to New York, John Davis joined his brother
Charles and opened the Browne-Davis Furniture Co. The business
prospered and both became treasured members of the local community in
Oswego. Selling their successful business after 40-plus years, the
Davis brothers enjoyed a fulfilling retirement.
John briefly became a constituent of mine when he retired to Dameron,
Maryland to live with his daughter Mary Elizabeth. Following her death
in 2001, John moved to Cheverly, Maryland, residing with his grandson,
John Davis Porcari, and his wife and five children. John Porcari served
with great distinction as Maryland Secretary of Transportation under
Governor Parris Glendening. He has recently been selected by Governor-
elect Martin O'Malley to take on this position in his administration.
John Davis heads a family consisting of four grandchildren, 15 great-
grandchildren and two great-great grandchildren. Dozens of nieces and
nephews from four generations and scores of friends continue to look up
to Mr. Davis, including his grand-nephew, Lt. Col. Harold VanOpdorp,
USMC, who commands the First Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment in Anbar
Province, Iraq.
According to his family, John Abijah Davis continues to teach life's
most valuable lessons--humility, duty and hard work, devotion to one's
God, family and friends. These lessons are reflected in all those he
has touched. As he, his family and friends celebrate this milestone,
they celebrate not the chronology of years, but the character of the
man.
I join with his family and many friends in wishing him continued
health and happiness on his 100th birthday.

____________________

RECOGNIZING CHAD BRENTON FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Chad Brenton,
a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities of
citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts
of America, Troop 320, and in earning the most prestigious award of
Eagle Scout.
Chad has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout
activities. Over the many years Chad has been involved with scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Chad
Brenton for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Chad in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 211, THE CALLING FOR 211 ACT OF 2007

______

HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I'm very proud to introduce the Calling for
211 Act of 2007, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on
the Energy and Commerce Committee to move this legislation through
Committee and bring it to the House floor. I have cosponsored this bill
in previous Congresses with former Rep. Mike Bilirakis, and I'm
confident that we now have the momentum to pass this legislation and
send it to the President.
Every hour of every day, someone in the United States needs essential
services for themselves or someone close to them. These services can
range from finding an after-school program for a child, to securing
care for an aging parent, to finding drug or alcohol counseling. Faced
with a myriad of agencies and help lines, many people end up going
without services they need just because they don't know where to begin.
When someone calls 2-1-1, an information and referral specialist
assesses the caller's needs and determines which service provider is
best equipped to handle their problem or

[[Page 363]]

crisis. These specialists are also trained to determine whether a
caller may be eligible for other programs. 2-1-1 service providers
maintain comprehensive databases of resources, including federal,
state, and local government agencies, community-based organizations,
and private non-profits.
In 2000, the FCC designated 2-1-1 for community information and
referral purposes. Today, 2-1-1 reaches 193 million Americans--about 69
percent of the U.S. population--with call centers operational in 41
states and the District of Columbia. However, inadequate funding
prevents universal access to 2-1-1 service in every state. 2-1-1
service is currently available statewide in only 17 states. The goal of
the Calling for 211 Act of 2007 is to ensure that all Americans have
access to quality community information and referral services through
2-1-1 wherever they live.
The largest barriers for communities seeking to implement 2-1-1 are
funding and awareness. In many states, limited resources have slowed
the process of connecting communities with this vital service. Current
funding where 2-1-1 is operational comes from diverse sources including
non-profits, state governments, foundations, and businesses.
The Calling for 211 Act is strongly supported by the United Way and
builds on existing efforts to make it easier to connect people with
important community services and volunteer opportunities. The
legislation provides federal matching grants to enable much-needed
changes to the way people connect to community social services,
including:
Providing the infrastructure to connect individuals with precise
information and social services that address their needs;
Empowering the nation to better respond to large-scale emergencies
and homeland security needs by relieving pressure on overwhelmed 9-1-1
call centers. During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, 2-1-1 served as a
crucial backup in areas where 9-1-1 centers went down;
Providing aggregated data from 2-1-1 systems nationwide to better
assess the needs of our communities.
I believe the 2-1-1 system has great potential; this legislation will
establish a federal partnership with states and local communities to
give more Americans access to 2-1-1 services. By augmenting existing
funding from state and local governments, nonprofits, and the business
community, we can ensure that 2-1-1 can finally be a truly national
system. A small investment at the national level would pay immediate
dividends in terms of faster, more efficient responses to non-emergency
but still critical situations.
In a crisis no one has time to flip through their phonebook. When an
urgent medical or safety issue arises, we dial 9-1-1 knowing we can get
help anywhere and at anytime. We should expect the same when it comes
to tracking down important social services as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help to
implement this critical safety net for all Americans.

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL INTEGRITY AND PENSION FORFEITURE ACT, H.R. 14

______

HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Congressional
Integrity and Pension Forfeiture Act, H.R. 14, which would deny Members
of Congress their pension should they be convicted of a felony. I feel
strongly that taxpayers should not be responsible for funding the
pension of one of us if we have broken the law, broken the public's
trust, and been convicted of a felony.
I introduced the same bill in the 109th Congress and a portion of it
was included in the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of
2006, H.R. 4975. Unfortunately, this bill was never considered by the
Senate. So I am reintroducing it today.
I based my bill almost exclusively after Congressman Randy Tate's
bill from the 104th Congress, H.R. 4011. This bill, with 74 co-
sponsors, passed the House of Representatives on September 26, 1996 by
a vote of 391-32 and 1 Present. It was never considered by the Senate.
The very first version of this bill was introduced by my predecessor,
Congressman John Edward Porter, in 1990 during the 101st Congress.
Congressman Porter had successfully passed a similar bill in the
Illinois General Assembly prior to coming to the U.S. Congress. In the
mid-1970s, two Members of the Illinois General Assembly were convicted
of felonies, resigned, but were still allowed to receive their state
pension. State Representative John Porter did not think that was right.
Luckily, his bill passed the Illinois General Assembly and reform
began.
An elected official should not be permitted to draw a publicly funded
pension after violating the very law he or she took an oath to uphold.
We should be held to a higher standard than others. We swore to uphold
the constitution and if we fail to do that, we should not receive
anything back from the public. A breach of law by a Member of Congress
is a very serious offense that should have very serious consequences.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO DALE DEMERS

______

HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD

of maine

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dale E.
Demers on the occasion of his retirement from the Department of
Veterans Affairs Regional Office at Togus, Maine after more than 30
years of dedicated service. Dale will be greatly missed, and I join his
many friends, co-workers and the veterans he served in wishing him the
best of luck in the next phase of his life.
Dale's service to our country began in 1968, when he joined the U.S.
Air Force. He began his VA career at the Togus Regional office in 1972
as a GS-1 Clerk. Dale has held several positions at Togus including
Adjudicator, Supervisory Adjudicator, Assistant Service Center Manager,
Service Center Manager, Assistant Center Director for Regional Office
Activities, and most recently as the Director for the Regional Office.
While working full time at Togus, Dale went back to school and in
1977 received a bachelor's degree in Psychology from the University of
Maine.
During Dale's career, he has been involved in many VBA initiatives.
He was instrumental in Togus being chosen as a resource center site.
The Togus Resource Center has been a huge success and has exceeded its
goal every month since its inception. Dale was also extremely involved
in the development of the current Claims Processing Improvement (CPI)
Initiative, which has assisted VBA national in reducing both the
duration of the response and backlog of claims processing.
Dale will be missed for his dedication and for his compassion by the
veterans of Maine. I am pleased to join his colleagues, his family, and
his friends in congratulating Dale on this milestone. I wish him a
rewarding and enjoyable retirement.

____________________

REINTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

______

HON. CLIFF STEARNS

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased on this first day of the
110th Congress to introduce several pieces of legislation that I have
been pursuing over the years, and for which I will continue to advocate
these next 2 years.
Ultrasound technology provides us with a fascinating ``womb with a
view,'' allowing doctors to better treat their pregnant patients. But
many underprivileged pregnant women cannot afford this important
option. These women desperately need access to these free services to
safeguard their health and prenatal well-being. That's why I am
reintroducing the ``Informed Choice Act,'' which authorizes the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to community-
based, non-profit health clinics that do not charge for their services,
for the purchase of ultrasound equipment. The centers that receive
these grants will be better able to offer free examinations--under
medical supervision--to women who might otherwise have no access to
such critical care.
I respect our code of law and our society founded on religious
freedom for all Americans. I believe the Ten Commandments are a concise
set of values that represent the historic foundation of our nation's
laws and our common view of what is right and wrong. Stories of murder,
rape, drug abuse, and school violence dominate the media and reveal our
society's need to be reminded of our moral compass. That is why I am
reintroducing my legislation to have the Ten Commandments prominently
posted in the Capitol building as a symbolic reminder of our heritage
and the values we aspire to govern by.

[[Page 364]]

I am reintroducing my Right to Carry Reciprocity bill that would
allow for a person to carry in all 50 states if he possesses a valid
permit in his home state. I believe that a person's right to self-
defense should not be limited to within a state line. Today, 46 states
have laws permitting concealed carry of firearms, and 38 states,
accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have Right To Carry
laws, which dramatically reduces their incidence of violent crimes. In
fact, the FBI statistics show 9 of the 10 states with the lowest
violent crime rates are RTC states. It is important to note this bill
would not create a federal licensing system, but merely requires states
to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize
drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. This
bill has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past with 102 cosponsors,
and I look forward to again working with my esteemed colleagues for its
passage in the 110th Congress.
I am also reintroducing two bills pushing further reforms to the
United Nations. On March 15, 2006, the U.N. replaced the discredited
Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Council. Unfortunately,
the new Council looks set to fail just as miserably as its predecessor.
While making superficial structural changes, no reforms were
implemented. The new elected membership includes such human rights
violators as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. My legislation
would require the Secretary of State to withhold from the U.S.
contribution to our U.N. dues an amount equal to the U.S. percentage of
the cost of the Council (approximately $500,000 a year). The U.S.
should not support the U.N. Human Rights Council until it upholds the
ideals of the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, and its membership is made up of free and democratic nations.
My other U.N. reform legislation deals with financial accounting for
the renovation of the United Nations building in New York. There have
been numerous reports of wasteful spending in this project, and my
legislation would prevent U.S. federal funds from being used for this
endeavor unless the President submits a report to Congress affirming
the United Nations is abiding by internationally recognized best
practices in contracting and resource management.
I am excited to again introduce legislation to help all American
savers. My legislation, the Simple Savings Tax Relief Act of 2007,
simply eliminates the taxation of interest earned in savings accounts,
such as passbook savings accounts or bank certificates of deposit. I
think at least some of this interest should be tax-free, as we have
been working towards other forms of non-earned income. This legislation
would end a punitive tax, especially assist low and middle-income
earners, and ultimately contribute toward the goal of encouraging
individual responsibility and taking charge of one's own financial
destiny.
Because I believe that health care access for all begins with tax
parity, I am pleased to again sponsor the Health Care Tax Deduction Act
of 2007. This would allow deductions for amounts paid for health
insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drugs. This would
provide much needed relief to individuals struggling with the high cost
of health insurance and prescription drugs through a tax deduction, and
tax parity with those of us who have employer-provided tax-deductible
health insurance. Expansively, this benefit extends to all IRS-defined
health insurance premiums such as an HMO, PPO, a traditional indemnity
plan, a new HSA, and also long-term care premiums. Right now, under the
current tax code, in order to claim health care expenses individuals
must file an itemized tax return. My bill would simplify and extend
this tax preference for all filers.
Because Members of Congress should put our money where our mouths
are, I am pleased to reoffer my Deficit Accountability Act of 2007. It
would prevent any automatic pay adjustment for Members of Congress in
the year following a fiscal year in which there is a Federal budget
deficit. It is needed to hold Members accountable for the Federal
budget, and any resulting deficits.
My last piece of legislation is one of inspiration, the Museum of
Ideas Act of 2007. It would create a commission to develop a plan for
establishing a Museum of Ideas. In our Nation's Capital, we are
enriched with museums exhibiting arts, natural sciences, modes of
transportation, musical instruments, tools of industry and production,
live plants and live animals, and other such tangible artifacts of our
universe, we lack a museum of the conceptual, of thoughts, concepts,
and philosophies throughout the history of the world.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on all these important
pieces of business for the Nation.

____________________

IN CELEBRATION OF ERMA CRAVEIRO TROWE'S 90TH BIRTHDAY

______

HON. JIM COSTA

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 90th birthday
of Ms. Erma Craveiro Trowe, a wonderful friend and loving community
member.
Erma's life story is quite fascinating. She was delivered by her
grandmother on January 8, 1918 in Lanare, California. She was a
graduate of Caruthers High School and California State University
Fresno, formerly known as Fresno State College. Upon the completion of
her studies, she pursued a successful career as a teacher at Madison
Grammar School, Ahwahnee Middle School and St. Anthony's School in
Fresno, California.
On February 21, 1938 Erma married Joe Craveiro. Their home was in
Fresno's Kearney Park neighborhood, where they raised their four
children: Audrey, Jerry, Bob and Thomas. They also operated a dairy and
grew alfalfa, cotton and sugar beets.
Aside from her commitments to her family, career and the ranch, Erma
has a lifelong involvement in various community activities. She is a
member of the Fig Garden Women's Club, served as a Cub Scout Mother,
and volunteered on the Parent Teacher's Association (PTA). Erma was
also instrumental in the development of the Houghton-Kearney Elementary
School.
Further, Erma has been a very dear friend to the Costa family. She
was my belated mother's best friend and actually drove her to the
hospital at the time of my birth.
Erma's life has been an exceptional role model for all women. She
attained a higher education degree, had a career in an important field,
is a person who has demonstrated endless devotion to her family and has
cared deeply about the welfare of her community. It is for these
reasons that I join Erma Craveiro Trowe's family and friends in wishing
her a blessed 90th birthday and continued health and happiness in the
years to come.

____________________

PRESIDENT'S SURGE AND ACCELERATE POLICY

______

HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, President Bush's war in Iraq has now gone
longer than America's involvement in World War II. Now we learn
President Bush intends to escalate the number of American troops in
Iraq. The great question across the land today is: is more of the same,
the answer? Will more of the same stabilize Iraq, or for that matter
the Middle East?
In all this long war in Iraq, we cannot help but wonder, what if?
What if we had not gone to war?
What if we had listened to that very important and vocal minority who
stood against the war when the President lead us down that misbegotten
road? Oh yes, I agree we are where we are today and we need to get out
of this mess together. I have been patient since my ``no'' vote on this
war four years ago and my ``yes'' vote almost 17 years ago for the
first Gulf War.
Of course, there are others who are also asking what if. They are the
family and friends of the young men and women who served their country.
They are the loved ones of those who have not been lucky enough to make
it home. They are those who sacrificed marriage, children, jobs, all in
the name of a war many now casually say was a mistake.
They are those, like my son-in-law, who sacrificed seeing the birth
of his and my daughter's first child.
These moments are painful for families across the country as we
recently celebrated the holiday season. These moments make us want to
dwell in the hope of the question, what if?
But we must not dwell, because in reflection we sometimes miss
opportunity. The President is set to announce that he wants to see a
``surge'' force of approximately 20,000 extra soldiers to support the
ongoing civil war in Iraq.
Madam Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist to calculate the
odds that more troops will mean more wounded, more fatalities, more
losses to American families. Is the President ready for 20,000 more
grieving families? Worse yet, has the President considered what this
will do to the existing all volunteer force?

[[Page 365]]

Retired Army Colonel Douglas McGregor has been quoted as saying, ``It
will break the force, which in my estimation is broken already. It will
leave you with no strategic reserves.'' Retired Army Colonel David Hunt
has said, ``Everyone we met was on a second tour, at least, and many
were on their fourth or fifth combat tour in either Iraq or
Afghanistan. The soldiers are tired; the families are going nuts. It's
not the solution.''
But then, Madam Speaker, the President has not shown that this is
truly about the sacrifice of our men and women. If it were, all of the
options presented to the President would be open for consideration, not
just the ones that already fit into his ideological philosophy. The
report from the Iraq Study Group would not have been as casually tossed
aside as were the advisements of the Presidents own military leaders--
career servicemen and women who have given their entire professional
lives to protecting America.
Over 3,000 have already lost their lives, and that's only the
Americans. One journalist in particular, is asking what if on his own.
Keith Olbermann, host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann has asked:
``What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them--and was then to
announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?
``This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President
Bush's ``new Iraq strategy,'' and his impending speech to the nation,
which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about
troop increases and ``sacrifice.''
``The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since
the release of the Iraq Study Group.
``He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.
``If the BBC is right--and we can only pray it is not--he has settled
on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work:
more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but
as part of some flabby plan for ``sacrifice.'' (Countdown, MSNBC, 1/2/
07)
Madam Speaker, the President's proposal reminds me of the ostrich who
would rather stick his head in the sand, than face the reality that
Americans want our soldiers home now. Not after another 20,000 have had
to die for a strategy that is entirely wrong.
In Olbermann's words, ``The additional men and women you have
sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.'' Which is
exactly what they will be, bodies to absorb the surge in the number of
insurgents which this senseless war has created. This senseless,
endless war, as Mr. Olbermann states has succeeded in two ways:
``It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the
collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war,
against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It has gotten many of us used to the idea--the virtual ``white
noise''--of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of
vague ``sacrifice'' for some fluid cause, too complicated to be
interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but
ultimately meaningless phrase ``the war on terror.''
And the war's second accomplishment--your second accomplishment,
sir--is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even
out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their
families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.''
(Countdown, MSNBC, 1/2/07)
Which, Madam Speaker, brings me back to the question of what if? In
light of all of the evidence to the contrary, what if we, as Congress,
allow the President to send tens of thousands of more men and women to
keep a peace that does not exist?
Madam Speaker, it is my hope that four years from now, I will not
have to look back on this question of what if with the same heavy heart
that I do for the past four years.

____________________

RECOGNIZING BRADLEY JOHNS FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Bradley
Johns, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 393, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Bradley has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Bradley has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Bradley
Johns for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Bradley in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE BY MAIL ACT

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2007--a bill to allow any
eligible voter to vote by mail in a federal election if he or she
chooses to do so.
In my home state of California, voters already have this right.
California is one of the twenty-eight states that already provide this
convenient alternative to voters.
While I love the ritual of going to the polls to vote, I know that
getting to the polls on Election Day is often difficult. For some, it's
impossible.
That is why I have introduced a bill that builds upon the growing
trend of states to bring the polls to the voters. I believe we should
try to meet our constituents halfway by increasing access to the
electoral process.
What I am proposing is not new or even untested. States ranging from
my home state of California, to Wisconsin, to North Carolina, to Maine
have already adopted this voter-friendly policy.
With mail voting, citizens can vote from the convenience of their own
homes. They will have more time to mull over their choices and make
informed decisions, and they will be able to do so on their own terms.
Not surprisingly, studies have shown that some of the biggest
supporters of voting by mail are parents, who must schedule time to go
to the polls around so many other obligations.
Studies have also indicated that adding the option to vote by mail
does not create a partisan advantage for one political party over the
other.
Republicans and Democrats both benefit from similar increases in
voter turnout when voters are given the choice to mail in their
ballots.
In fact, overwhelming support for voting by mail is consistent across
nearly every demographic--including age, income level, race, education,
employment status and ideology. It is a win-win for all Americans.
After adopting a universal right to vote by mail system in 1978,
California saw a thirty percent increase in the use of mail-in ballots.
In my district of San Diego, over 40 percent of voters opted to mail
in their votes during the 2006 election.
Other States that have implemented this policy have seen the same
degree of support from voters, which is why it is hardly surprising
that States offering the option of mail-in ballots often experience
greater voter participation.
There is also an extremely low incidence of fraud with voting by mail
when compared to other methods of voting.
As the former President of the League of Women Voters of San Diego, I
care deeply about the integrity of our electoral system.
Twenty-eight States have already proven this option works, and it is
safe. It is time to give voters in the remaining States this
convenient, secure and affordable alternative.
While I am proud to be from a State where citizens already have this
right, I believe democracy works best when all citizens have an equal
opportunity to have their voices heard.
Right now, an uneven playing field exists between States that already
offer the option of mail-in ballots and States that do not.
When the same election is more accessible to voters in California
than it is to voters in Michigan, the system is unfair.
States that fail to offer this choice stand to compromise their
leverage in Federal elections by curbing the greatest level of voter
participation.
We should follow the lead of over half of our Nation's States and
ensure a uniformity of rights for all voters.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
supporting this effort to strengthen the democratic process and give
American voters the choices they deserve.

[[Page 366]]

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE PERSONAL HEALTH INVESTMENT TODAY ACT

______

HON. JERRY WELLER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, as we move through the 21st
century, we are constantly facing new challenges to our public welfare
that we had not previously seen.
A more recent challenge that has surfaced is the relative epidemic of
obesity, and the onset of disease and health care difficulties
resulting from lack of a healthy lifestyle.
I think that many agree with me that a key component of living a
healthy productive life is found through regular exercise and the
benefits that it brings.
The Department of Health and Human Services predicts that spending on
healthcare will consume 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic
product by 2015 if current trends hold true.
At this rate of growth, America is on track to spend roughly $4
trillion on healthcare within the next ten years. This level of
spending for medical treatment is unsustainable and can only be curbed
through efforts to prevent disease before treatment is necessary.
Given the healthcare crisis we are facing in this country today, I
strongly believe that creative solutions are necessary to improve the
nation's fitness levels.
This need for creative solutions is why I am reintroducing the The
Personal Health Investment Today (PHIT) Bill, (RR. 5479 in the 109th
Congress).
This bill allows for expenditures for exercise and physical activity,
such as health club memberships, some exercise equipment, and sports
programs, to be payable out of various tax-favored investment accounts:
flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health savings accounts (HSAs),
medical savings accounts (MSAs) and/or medical reimbursement
arrangements, up to $1,000.
If enacted, PHIT would give parents the opportunity to pay for their
children's soccer league fees out of their HSAs. They could join a
fitness center and pay for the membership fees with pretax dollars or
they could purchase a home gym to help them fight the onset of obesity,
a primary risk factor for developing anyone of several chronic diseases
which are currently fueling the frightening increase in our national
healthcare expenditure.
Depending upon a consumer's individual income tax bracket, the PHIT
initiative could help Americans save 25-30 percent on their exercise
costs.
Health experts agree that regular physical activity substantially
reduces the risk and symptoms of numerous diseases and medical
conditions and is associated with fewer hospitalizations, physicians'
visits, and medications, resulting in lower healthcare costs.
The PHIT tax incentive represents an important step to induce more
people to get the levels of exercise they need to improve their level
of fitness and help lower healthcare costs for all Americans, which is
why I am proud to reintroduce this bill.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CHARLIE NORWOOD

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, on roll call no. 7; On adoption of Title
2 of the Resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

RECOGNIZING MARTHA C. STONUM

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Martha C.
Stonum of Lawson, Missouri. Martha will celebrate her 100th birthday on
January 31, 2007, and it is my privilege to offer her my warmest
regards on achieving this important milestone.
Mrs. Stonum was born in Lathrop, Missouri where she began her
education in a one-room school house, before ultimately attending
William Jewell College. Mrs. Stonum is a loving mother, grandmother,
and great-grandmother to two sons, one step son, four grandchildren,
two step grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, three step great-
grandchildren, and one step great-great-grandchild. Mrs. Stonum is
still an active member of her community, visiting her beauty shop and
church weekly.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in recognizing Martha C.
Stonum. It is an honor to represent her in the United States Congress,
and I wish her all the best for many more birthdays in the future.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD-CERTIFIED TEACHERS IN LOW-PERFORMING
SCHOOLS ACT

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
the National Board-Certified Teachers in Low-Performing Schools Act of
2007.
I have been proactive in promoting professional teaching standards
throughout my public service and strongly believe certification is more
important now than ever.
We know that schools in the United States are falling behind in the
core subject areas of math and the sciences. Teacher certification is a
step toward gaining ground against other nations as well as working to
close the Achievement Gap here in our own nation.
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards provides
America's teachers with high-quality training and professional
certification. Research shows the benefits of this advanced credential.
Students of certified teachers showed year-end testing improvements
averaging 7 to 15 percent more than students learning from noncertified
teachers.
Another study by the University of North Carolina found that the
depth of learning for students was greater in the classrooms of
certified teachers. That is, these students show greater cognitive
gains overall than students of non-certified teachers.
I am convinced we must do more to encourage our dedicated teachers
who are already in the classrooms.
My legislation authorizes a pilot program to give teachers with
certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards a $5,000 annual stipend when they teach in a low-income
school or a school that is underperforming.
Professional teaching certification would improve education in the
United States and help make our nation competitive and I am pleased for
the opportunity to promote this certification in Congress.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to introduce
the legislation today.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE COMBAT MILITARY MEDICALLY RETIRED VETERANS ACT

______

HON. JERRY WELLER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, we owe our veterans a great
debt of gratitude. Their sacrifices have protected the democratic
ideals that are the foundation of our country, and their heroism
continues to be an example for all Americans.
Perhaps now, more than any time in recent history, it is important to
remember that our Nation has remained strong because of those who have
fought and died for our country. By answering the call of duty and
risking their lives to protect their fellow citizens, these patriots
have inspired us with their courage, compassion, and dedication.
Many of these brave men and women become severely wounded due to
combat related injuries, and are forced to retire as physically unfit
to perform his or her duties. Once forced out of the service, many are
unable to find gainful employment due to their injuries while at the
same time being rated at less than their actual disability rate by the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). They have little to fall back
on and deserve better for their sacrifice.
That is why I am reintroducing the Combat Military Medically Retired
Veterans Act, (H.R. 995 in the 109th Congress), which allows combat
military medically retired veterans who received the Purple Heart to
collect their prorated military retirement pay.
This legislation differs from the current concurrent receipt benefit
because it exempts combat military medically retired veterans from the
current 20-year service requirement. The benefit will match their time
of service.
The Congressional Budget Office scored my bill at $496 million over
ten years, certainly a small price to pay for those who have sacrificed
so much for our great nation.
I am proud to state that my bill has been endorsed by the American
G.I. Forum of the

[[Page 367]]

United States; American Legion, Department of Illinois; American
Legion, National Office; Blinded Veterans Association; Gold Star Wives
of America; and the Hispanic War Veterans of America.
All military combat veterans who are military medically retired from
combat related disabilities and have been awarded the Purple Heart
should be exempt from the requirement of 20 years of service in order
to be entitled to their prorated military retirement pay.
America's disabled combat veterans gave their all for us and should
not be penalized just because they are receiving compensation from the
VA. While many disabled veterans go on to enjoy happy productive lives,
many are unable to due to the severity of their wounds.
Under any doctrine of fairness it is our moral obligation to ``care
for him who shall have borne the battle.'' This bill is a good step in
correcting the inequity of retirement and disability benefit to our
combat disabled veterans.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CHARLIE NORWOOD

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, on roll call No. 6; on adoption of Title
I of the Resolution, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

RECOGNIZING CHRISTOPHER D. ROBERTS FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE
SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Christopher
D. Roberts, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 351, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Christopher has been very active with his troop, participating in
many scout activities. Over the many years Christopher has been
involved with scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges,
but also the respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Christopher
D. Roberts for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Christopher in the United States House
of Representatives.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL MENTORING ACT

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a
resolution recognizing and honoring those who make a difference in the
lives of our young people across the United States.
This January marks National Mentoring Month as proclaimed by the
President of the United States. It is a month-long celebration honoring
those who are mentors and drawing attention to the great need for more
mentors.
Mentors make a tremendous difference in the lives of our children.
When a responsible and reliable adult becomes a mentor, the benefits to
the mentee can last a lifetime. Countless stories show the great
benefits of a good role model.
Chris Moran became a mentor to Joshua Becerra in my hometown of San
Diego through the Big Brothers Big Sisters program when he was just 9
years old in 1999. Chris and Joshua have gotten together on a weekly
basis ever since for horseback riding, chess, and other activities. The
relationship has been meaningful for both.
Spending time with a young person gave Chris a healthier perspective
on what is important in life--helping others, he said. Joshua, now a
student at San Diego's High Tech High, is looking forward to attending
college and has already visited UCLA, San Diego State University, and
other campuses trying to decide where to apply. Joshua attributes his
academic success in large part to his mentor.
Joshua plans to study music when he goes on to college and would like
to become a professional musician. Chris is helping him locate a
college with an excellent music program.
These types of relationships between reliable adults and our young
people are invaluable. Millions of adults nationwide are acting as
excellent role models while providing guidance and advice to our young
people--many of whom face problems at home or difficulties at school.
Without a good, solid role model, our kids are more likely to drop out
of high school or to become involved with drugs or alcohol.
Madam Speaker, this resolution honors and recognizes the adults
across the United States who are mentors to our young people. This
resolution also calls on more adults to become mentors to those in
need.
Unfortunately, research shows that about 15 million children across
the United States are in need of a mentor and a good role model. It is
crucial that we begin to reach these children.
Finally, this resolution highlights the need to support programs that
teach our young people about mentoring and the need to become involved.
There are programs, for example, that encourage high school students to
become mentors to younger children. These types of programs will teach
the great benefits of mentoring at a young age and result in adults
becoming mentors later--creating a ``cycle'' of mentoring.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to offer a
resolution honoring America's mentors on the occasion of National
Mentoring Month 2007.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF KIDSAVE

______

HON. JERRY WELLER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, commentators on the political
left and right agree about one thing: There are too many political
disagreements in Washington, D.C. Of course, the best way to change
that would be for those of us who are lawmakers to find common ground
and begin passing legislation that virtually everyone can agree on.
Where to begin? How about with a program that has the support of
moderates, liberals, and even the conservative Heritage Foundation?
That program is KidSave.
This common-sense program would allow every American child--
regardless of parental income--to save up tens of thousands of dollars
for retirement.
KidSave is fairly simple. If it was in effect today, at birth every
child would receive a loan of $2,000 from the Social Security
Administration. The initial amount would be linked to inflation, so it
would increase slightly year to year. The money would be deposited into
an account that couldn't be opened until the owner retires or dies.
This account would be managed by the Thrift Savings Plan, the same
plan that federal employees--including those of us in Congress--use to
manage our retirement funds. Right now there are three low risk, low-
cost options offered through the TSP: A government-bond fund, a
corporate-bond fund and a stock index fund.
The child's parents would decide which fund to deposit the initial
investment in, and it would grow untapped for decades and decades.
According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, the opportunity for
growth is so great that, even if no money was ever added to the initial
investment, that loan could still grow to $50,000 by the time the child
reached retirement age.
Parents and grandparents also could contribute additional money tax-
free. They could add as much as $500 per year every year until the
child turned 19, and that money could be diverted from their own
retirement plans. That's an additional $9,500, all of it being
compounded year after year until retirement.
This is one of those rare Washington programs with the power to
change everyone's outlook for the better.
Wealthy people have long taken advantage of long-term investments--
indeed, families such as the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts have lived
for decades off the money earned by their forefathers. Today, thousands
of middle-class grandparents are opening education accounts for their
newborn grandchildren.
But KidSave would allow all children to enjoy the benefits of
compound interest. Imagine an entire generation of working-class senior
citizens with tens of thousands of dollars to spend as they wish.
They'd be virtually guaranteed a secure retirement and could spend
their newfound wealth on themselves or share it with their children and
grandchildren.
A portion of this money would be passed from generation to
generation, either as gifts

[[Page 368]]

to grandchildren or through donations to churches or community groups.
That would help build a more secure future for generations to come.
Best of all, KidSave is a loan from Social Security, not a gift or a
new government entitlement. That's one reason it enjoys such broad
support. And it doesn't end up costing taxpayers anything. When the
account owner reaches age 30--an age at which most people are well
along in their working lives--the original loan would be repaid in five
annual installments. The repayment amount would be linked to inflation,
so an initial $2,000 loan would be returned to the government as, say,
$3,500.
Lawmakers today are deadlocked over how to reform Social Security,
how to improve welfare and how to close military bases, to name just
three difficult issues.
But we could get started on solving those if we'd first implement
common-sense programs that enjoy wide support. KidSave seems like a
good place to start building a better future for all Americans. That is
why I am reintroducing for the 110th Congress, this important bill.

____________________

RECOGNIZING EVAN S. KNOLL FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Evan S.
Knoll, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 351, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Evan has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout
activities. Over the many years Evan has been involved with scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Evan S.
Knoll for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Evan in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

SECOND OPINION COVERAGE ACT

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the
Second Opinion Coverage Act--legislation that will ensure the
accessibility and coverage of medical second opinions.
Imagine that your doctor tells you that you must undergo radical
surgery that may threaten the use of a limb or leave you with a serious
chronic condition. Understandably, you would request a second opinion
from another physician. Most health care groups see the value in such
requests and provide patients with a second opinion. Besides giving
patients much needed peace of mind, second opinions can benefit health
plans by reducing the number of invasive procedures and result in
better patient care through increased dialogue about treatment options.
However, when I was a member of the California State Assembly, I
heard from a number of patients who experienced a glitch in their
health care coverage. They noticed the absence of a clear process for
obtaining medical second opinions. These patients, many struggling with
challenging health conditions, had difficulties obtaining second
opinions through their health plans.
After meeting with patients, physicians and health groups, I authored
a law in California that guarantees coverage of second opinions.
Patients, meeting any one of several qualifying conditions, are
entitled to a timely second opinion by a ``qualified health care
professional,'' within 72 hours in cases of serious or imminent health
threat. When another expert is not available within the provider group
or network, the organization will pay for an appropriately qualified
doctor outside of the plan. Patients are responsible for the costs of
applicable co-payments.
The law in California was a good first step. Unfortunately, this
legislation does not cover individuals enrolled in self-insured,
federally regulated health plans. Nationwide, this translates into 67
million persons without guaranteed access to second opinions. I believe
the time has come to make access to second opinions a national
standard.
I urge you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this
critical legislation into law.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY RETRAINING AND INVESTMENT NOW ACT

______

HON. JERRY WELLER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, as we move further into the
21st Century, I continue to have deep concerns over the need to
maintain America's competitive edge as we continue to grow our Nation's
economy.
As the U.S. economy becomes more dynamic, the types of growing
industries are also changing. Increasingly new jobs in many fields
require the application of technology skills. These include workers
across all industry sectors, not just in the IT industry sector.
In order to keep up with the rapid rate of technological changes,
expanded information technology (IT) skills education and training in
many industries is essential to create a more effective and productive
workforce and remain both domestically and globally competitive.
In recognition of the growing importance of information technology
skills to the competitiveness of the U.S. workforce there needs to be
greater awareness on the importance of increased investment in worker
IT education and training.
That's why I am introducing the Technology Retraining And Investment
Now Act (TRAIN Act), a bill that will improve opportunities for
America's workforce in an ever-changing world.
The TRAIN Act would provide a tax credit for an amount equal to 50%
of information and communications technology training (ICT) program
expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer for the benefit of: an
employee of the taxpayer; or, an individual who is not employed on up
to $10,000 per year. Expenses may include payments in connection with:
course work, certification testing and other expenses that are
essential to assessing skill acquisition.
This tax credit is necessary because technology skills are
increasingly important to workers in more and more industries. It is no
longer just the software programmers who create the technology, but
increasingly engineers, machinists, architects, call center workers and
many others who must continuously upgrade their skills in the use of
the ever-changing tools of technology if they are to remain competitive
in an increasingly global and service-oriented workforce market.
Just as the research and development tax credit helps companies make
continuous investments in new product development, today a
complimentary human resources technology development tax credit is now
equally necessary to assure that there is a continuous investment in
the technology skills of the U.S. workforce so it is competitive in the
new worldwide economy.

____________________

RECOGNIZING DAVID I. HON FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize David I. Hon,
a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities of
citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts
of America, Troop 351, and in earning the most prestigious award of
Eagle Scout.
David has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years David has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending David I.
Hon for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his
efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.
I am honored to represent David in the United States House of
Representatives.

[[Page 369]]

____________________

THE WOMEN'S OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST MEDICAL ACCESS NOW ACT (THE
WOMAN ACT)

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the
Women's Obstetrician and Gynecologist Medical Access Now Act, the WOMAN
Act. This bill will ensure that every woman has direct access to her
OB-GYN.
I believe women should not need a permission slip to receive OB-GYN
care. Unfortunately, that is the reality faced by many women when they
need to see their doctor. Numerous managed care plans require women to
visit their primary care physicians before seeking the health care
services they need from the providers they want. Denying direct access
or forcing women to jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops to see
their OB-GYN is not acceptable treatment.
The WOMAN Act recognizes women have different medical needs than men
and the significant role OB-GYNs play in women's health. Women who see
an OB-GYN on a regular basis are more likely to receive important
screening services, such as pelvic exams, as well as counseling on
critical reproductive health issues. My legislation removes the
barriers complicating women's access to their doctors. Women will no
longer have to contend with the gatekeeper system that can prevent or
delay appropriate care.
It is easy to understand what a difference direct OB-GYN access makes
in women's health care. Imagine, for a moment, a woman in San Diego who
works 45 hours a week and has limited sick and vacation time. Now,
imagine she has an urgent medical problem requiring an OB-GYN visit. On
Monday, she calls from work to make an appointment with her primary
care physician. If she is lucky, she gets an appointment for the
following morning. She takes time off Tuesday to go see her doctor. Her
primary care doctor agrees she should be seen by her OB-GYN and gives
her a referral. Tuesday afternoon, she returns to work and calls her
OB-GYN for an appointment. The doctor is in surgery on Wednesday, but
they offer her an appointment on Friday morning. On Friday she takes
another morning off from work, and finally, after almost a week, gets
the care she needs. The unnecessary referral process resulted in her
taking an extra morning off work and delayed her proper medical care by
five days. The patient, employer, primary care physician, and health
plan provider would have saved money and time if the patient had been
able to go directly to her OB-GYN.
The public overwhelmingly supports direct access to OB-GYN care. A
survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University
found that 82 percent support direct access legislation and 63 percent
would support it even if their health insurance costs increased.
While serving in the California State Assembly, I heard from many
women who experienced the same problems I have outlined today. After
meeting with women, obstetricians and gynecologists, health plan
representatives, and providers in the State of California, I wrote the
State law allowing women direct access to their OB-GYN. That law was a
good first step; however, it still does not cover women enrolled in
self-insured, federally regulated health plans. This means that even if
a woman lives in a State with direct access protections, like
California, she may not be able to see her OB-GYN without a referral if
she is covered by a federally regulated ERISA health plan. In addition,
there are almost a dozen states which still do not provide women with
direct access to OB-GYNs.
Women save time and money with better access to OB-GYN care. I
believe the time has come to make direct access to an OB-GYN a national
standard.
I urge you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this
critical legislation into law.

____________________

3,000 REASONS TO WITHDRAW TROOPS

______

HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, New Year's Eve marked another grave
milestone in Iraq, as the United States lost its 3,000th soldier since
the war began. Attacks on our troops are increasing as civil war
spreads. America lost more troops in Iraq in December than in any other
month during the previous two years.
As we honor the fallen, we must remember the daily life and death
consequences of President Bush's policies. The time to begin
withdrawing our troops from Iraq has long since passed. The longer we
have stayed the course, the worse conditions in Iraq have become.
November's elections were a mandate for change in Iraq. As more and
more members of the President's own party deem the Administration's
policy a failure, an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on
President Bush to draw down our troops from Iraq. It has become
resoundingly clear that a military solution is not possible. Our troops
were not trained for or sent to Iraq to referee a civil war. An
extended American military presence will just continue to fuel the
insurgency.
The Republican co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, warned
that ``We no longer can afford to stay the course,'' and Lee Hamilton,
the Democratic co-chair, agreed. ``The current approach is not working
and the ability of the United States to influence events is
diminishing. Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart
a new way forward.'' Instead of continuing to stubbornly defend his
administration's failed war strategies, the President must now work
with Congress and foreign leaders to chart a diplomatic strategy that
reduces the violence in Iraq.
The President left the U.S. with no good options, but increasing the
number of American servicemen and women in Iraq is an unacceptable
course. The new Congress must use its authority to ensure that the
calls of the American people do not fall on deaf ears.
It will take many years for the U.S. to move beyond the setbacks we
have suffered in Iraq. Our military is overstretched. Our diplomatic
authority has been severely diminished. We have shifted our focus away
from Afghanistan, and a resurgent Taliban is increasing its attacks on
American troops.
For those families whose sons and daughters died in the war, the
wounds will never heal. Illinois is one of eight states that lost more
than 100 troops in Iraq. From Rock Island to Champaign, from Skokie to
Carbondale, more than 100 families have suffered the ultimate loss. It
is time to change course.

____________________

RECOGNIZING KENNETH G. SAMPSELL FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Kenneth G.
Sampsell, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 351, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Kenneth has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Kenneth has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Kenneth G.
Sampsell for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Kenneth in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CHARLES BEACH III

______

HON. HAROLD ROGERS

of kentucky

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
an exceptional Kentuckian, Mayor Charles ``Charlie'' Beach III. After
serving 32 years as mayor of the City of Beattyville, Kentucky, Mayor
Beach is leaving office. I want to express my deepest gratitude for his
many contributions and years of public service.
Throughout his tenure, Mayor Beach has led a number of initiatives to
improve the lives of Lee County residents, build hope in our
Appalachian region, and serve as an economic and community development
leader for the entire Commonwealth. Southern and Eastern Kentucky has
been plagued with inadequate water and sewer infrastructure and poor
housing opportunities. Mayor Beach has been the

[[Page 370]]

driving force behind construction of two water plants, a sewage
treatment plant, and installation of necessary piping to serve and
reach the rural residents of Beattyville and Lee County. In addition,
Mayor Beach is well-regarded throughout the Commonwealth for his vision
of providing quality, affordable housing.
Since 2002, Mayor Beach has been a critical partner in our regional
anti-drug initiative ``Operation UNITE.'' Beach was a key early
supporter and critical ally in getting drugs off our streets and
cleaning up our communities. He has consistently backed efforts to
educate our children on the dangers of drug use and our program to help
drug users find treatment options.
In addition to his duties as mayor, Charles Beach is also the Vice-
Chairman of the Peoples Exchange Bank where he provides business
development and public relations leadership. He is the former President
of the Kentucky League of Cities and has served as the Chairman of the
Kentucky River Area Development District. These organizations promote
the welfare and economic growth of Kentucky's rural and urban areas.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mayor Beach for his selfless sacrifice
and service on behalf of the people of the City of Beattyville, Lee
County, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. His dedication and integrity
are an inspiration to us all and I know his contributions will live on
for many years to come.

____________________

A NEW DAY FOR AMERICA

______

HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, now begins a new day for America.
During the first ``100 Hours'' of the 110th Congress, Democrats will
answer the voters' call for change. We will restore honesty, openness,
and civility to Congress, require Medicare to negotiate for lower drug
prices, lower the cost of higher education, raise the minimum wage,
invest in `` saving embryonic stem cell research and alternative
energy, and strengthen our homeland security.
The election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is a historic
moment--a testament to Nancy's able, dedicated, and unifying
leadership. I am confident that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), Caucus
Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), and Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (D-
CT) will lead us in a new direction that makes our country stronger and
more just. While we will make great strides during the first ``100
Hours,'' it's just a downpayment. Even greater change is on the
horizon.
On November 7th, Americans demonstrated that they will not wait for
change in Iraq. Three thousand of our troops have lost their lives and
civil war is spreading. Even the Republican co-chair of the Iraq Study
Group, James Baker, warned 'We can no longer afford to stay the
course.' I will work with members of both parties to pressure the Bush
Administration to begin to draw down troops as quickly as possible so
that a diplomatic course may be pursued.
While corporations and the few at the top have profited from tax
breaks and giveaways, the majority of workers and families in our
country have been left behind. My fight to provide opportunity and
economic security for the majority of Americans continues. I will work
provide good jobs with strong benefits, to end waste and abuse in the
government contracting process, and to protect consumers from corporate
wrongdoing.
The challenges facing our great nation are many. With a focus on our
most urgent priorities, Democrats will lead the United States to thrive
again, as a force for good that provides opportunity for all.

____________________

RECOGNIZING NICHOLAS J. MOORE FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Nicholas J.
Moore, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 900, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Nicholas has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. When Nicholas achieved the rank of Eagle Scout this
summer at Bartle Camp, he became the first Eagle Scout in Boy Scout
Troop 900. Over the many years Nicholas has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Nicholas J.
Moore for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.

____________________

THE IMPORTANCE OF BREAST CANCER AWARENESS

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, breast cancer is the second leading cause
of cancer death among American women and more than 40,000 women will
die from breast cancer this year alone. Three of four women diagnosed
with breast cancer have no known risk--no family history.
While the diagnosis rate of this cancer continues to increase, I am
thankful the breast cancer death rate is steadily decreasing, which is
in large part due to advancing medical treatments and an increase in
early detection. By continuing to support breast cancer research and
early diagnosis, we can help bring an end to this disease that takes a
new life once every fourteen minutes.
In recognition of last year's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Karen
Stevenson, a resident of New Canaan, Connecticut, gave an address at
the launch of the ``Paint the Town Pink'' program at New Canaan Town
Hall. I submit the text of Ms. Stevenson's remarks to be entered into
the Record.

Good morning. Active and healthy--definitely much more fit
than I am now--with no history of the disease in the family,
I was completely blindsided by a breast cancer diagnosis 5
years ago based on an unusual mammogram result. I had a
mastectomy and reconstructive surgery followed by 5 months of
chemotherapy. My daughters were 7 and 10 at the time.
With the warm generosity of family, friends and colleagues
who supplied moral support, hugs, and many a meal to help
maintain normalcy in the girls' routine at home, we navigated
through that difficult period and came out the other side.
The kids were troopers. To this day they still find such
humor in telling the story of Mom having melted her wig on
Thanksgiving Day with a sudden blast of heat from the oven
while basting.
My situation is not unique, but rather, representative of
what so many women in our community have faced.
I shared the first few weeks of chemo with a group of
spectacular women and we quickly banded together to help
carry one another through the various rounds of surgeries,
chemo, radiation, genetic testing, additional surgeries, and
follow-on treatments in all the years since.
Licia, a young professional diagnosed only 4 months after
being married,
Kerry, an exceptionally talented marketing director, artist
and mom, diagnosed only 1 week before giving birth to her
second child,
Debbie, a teacher and beautiful mother of three young
school children,
Julia, a NYC actress and mother of two teenagers,
Chris, an attorney and mother of two pre-school daughters.
Of note, while we were a randomly assembled group of six,
four of us were under 35 years old and all of us were under
age 43.
Breast cancer is everywhere and I'm sure you can each add
several names of patients and loved ones to the growing list.
While the topic doesn't typically surface in casual
conversation it always amazes me how often we discover this
common sisterhood.
While the diagnosis itself is daunting, we are the
fortunate beneficiaries of the drug trials and experiences of
the many who have gone before us over the past 20 years, and
as a result, there are many more treatment options available,
as well as access to solid information about their efficacy
and managing side effects. In my case and for many others,
early detection and the rapidly evolving treatment have
ensured we can continue to attend the soccer games and school
plays, host family holidays and be here to enjoy our
families.
The harsh reality is that even the treatments available
today are not successful for all of us and the implication of
later diagnosis is significantly added risk. It is just
heartbreaking to watch so many vibrant women in our community
struggle and suffer for years, exhausting treatment options
that will hold back their cancer and pain while trying to
continue care for their families.
We are so fortunate to live in an area with such excellent
access to quality care locally--for regular check-ups, for
mobile

[[Page 371]]

mammograms, and should it be necessary, for both proven and
innovative cancer treatments. But we must take advantage of
that access!
Ask yourself tonight as you are tucking your children into
bed . . . or talking to your college student via phone this
weekend . . . or watching your grandson's football game . . .
Are you willing to put this in jeopardy unnecessarily when it
takes only an hour of your time to make and keep a screening
appointment? As you walk past the waves of pink on Elm and
Main Streets, won't you take a pledge today to ensure all the
important women in your life make this a priority?
On behalf of all of those who have been touched personally
by Breast Cancer--and I'm sure there are many here today--we
offer our profound thanks to the merchants of New Canaan and
to Janet Blaylock and the team of volunteers she has
mobilized. Your efforts to Paint the Town Pink for a weeks in
October as a collective call to action will most certainly be
a positive turning point in the lives of many families in our
community.

____________________

HONORING DAVID OGG ON HIS PROMOTION TO BRIGADIER GENERAL

______

HON. BART GORDON

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor David
Ogg on earning the rank of Brigadier General in the U.S. Army. Today,
BG Ogg is being honored in a ceremony to commemorate this great
achievement.
During the course of his 28 years of distinguished service, BG Ogg
has served in Germany, where he was on the front line of the cold war
in Europe. Later, his career transitioned to project management, and he
worked with some of the military's most important and most
sophisticated new hardware, such as the M113 and Stryker combat
vehicles.
While his military service has led him around the globe, BG Ogg has
never forgotten where he comes from. Although he is currently stationed
in Michigan, BG Ogg still calls Murfreesboro, Tennessee, home. In fact,
he returned to his alma mater, Middle Tennessee State University, to
teach ROTC for 4 years. And his two sons now are continuing the family
tradition and seeking their degrees at MTSU.
As a fellow MTSU alumnus and former student of MTSU's ROTC program, I
thank BG Ogg for his service to his country, and I commend him for his
hard work and dedication. I also commend his wife, Pam, and their sons,
Jason and Stuart, for the sacrifices they have made as BG Ogg has
proudly worn the uniform of this Nation. I wish David Ogg and the
entire Ogg family continued success and happiness.

____________________

RECOGNIZING SEAN T. COWDEN FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Sean T.
Cowden, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 395, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Sean has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout
activities. Over the many years Sean has been involved with scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Sean T.
Cowden for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout. I am honored to represent Sean in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

HONORING THE LIFE OF GERALD FORD, 38TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

______

HON. ARTUR DAVIS

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, we overlooked Gerald Ford's
significance when he served as President. His tenure was only slightly
longer than a congressional term, a cruel irony for a politician whose
political career was so grounded in the by-ways of the House. He was
hardly a master politician, if the term refers to the winning of
elections or the swift dispatch of opposition: Ford came within an inch
of not being re-nominated, and he lost in the general election to the
most obscure winner of our times.
This week, as we mourn Ford's passing, his legacy is much clearer:
first, he gracefully presided over the aftermath of Richard Nixon's
forced removal, and over the culmination of our debacle in Vietnam. Had
he gotten either moment wrong, the country might have been ripped into
two, bitter competing halves. As we contemplate the mistakes subsequent
presidents have made, it is a virtue that Gerald Ford made not a single
major error in judgment: he did not blunder into any ill-chosen wars,
and as much as an opposition dominated Congress thwarted him, he never
resorted to subterfuge in an effort to tip the scales.
Then there is the graceful way Ford practiced politics. The challenge
from Ronald Reagan was perilous because even in 1976, Ford was not of a
philosophic kin with most Republican primary voters. A less principled
president would have demagogued on issues like busing or affirmative
action; certainly, he might have abandoned the detente that was a major
contributor to taming the Soviet Union. A modern, win-at all cost
politician would have savaged an unknown like Jimmy Carter. The fact is
that the 1976 election season was at once breathtakingly close and
remarkably civil.
Imagine if Gerald Ford's major value, the cultivation of common
ground, had dominated the last two fractious decades. Our two major
political philosophies would not have been at irreconcilable odds, with
both tending to treat each battle as if it were the ultimate one or as
if we weren't bound to share a future together. We mourn Gerald Ford's
decency and we also mourn the loss of the political character that left
the stage when we retired him.

____________________

HONORING DENNIS KAMPER

______

HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today
in acknowledging the retirement of Mr. Dennis Kamper and his 38 years
of public service to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis
District.
Mr. Kamper began his career as a student earning both a Bachelor's
and Master's Degree in Engineering at the University of Louisville.
With the Corps, Mr. Kamper has served in the Louisville, Philadelphia,
and Memphis Districts. At each assignment Mr. Kamper has received
praise for his dedication to providing quality products and services to
the Corps of Engineers and their customers.
Dennis has been a shining example of the Corps of Engineers' mission
through his visionary leadership and exemplary managerial style. These
contributions include the design and construction of numerous civil
works projects, mentoring and recognition of his employees, his ``open
door'' policy, and implementing and institutionalizing the Army
Performance Improvement Criteria (APIC).
In addition to his professional responsibilities, Dennis Kamper has
built a legacy as a model citizen and community leader. He is an active
member in his church and the Society of American Military Engineers
(SAME), a strong supporter of Memphis District's Adopt-a-School
program, and a speaker at numerous Career Day programs promoting the
engineering profession.
Please join me in honoring Dennis Kamper and wishing him the best in
a well-deserved retirement.

____________________

RECOGNIZING RYAN E. MOSE FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Ryan E. Mose,
a very special young man who has exemplified the finest

[[Page 372]]

qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 374, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Ryan has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout
activities. Over the many years Ryan has been involved with scouting,
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of
his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Ryan E.
Mose for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his
efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.
I am honored to represent Ryan in the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

RECOGNIZING HEROISM

______

HON. CLIFF STEARNS

of florida

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this chance to recognize a
true hero, someone who put aside the natural reaction to remain safe
and instead risked his life to save another.
Wesley Autrey recently demonstrated heroism at the subway station at
137th Street and Broadway. Mr. Autrey was waiting with his two children
on the subway platform when he saw a young man suffer a seizure and
fall onto the tracks.
Realizing that a train was approaching and with no chance of helping
the young man off of the track, Mr. Autry jumped down onto the tracks
and placed his body on top of the victim to protect him from the train.
The train missed Mr. Autry by mere inches and both emerged unscathed.
In a world plagued by terrorism, indifference, and selfishness, Mr.
Autrey's action demonstrated a commitment to preserving life and showed
that we still have heroes among us. I commend a real American hero,
Wesley Autrey.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2007

______

HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, national security is our highest priority.
Congress has created risk-based grants to direct limited federal funds
toward areas facing higher threats, in order to ensure that our country
is protected against and prepared for any future terrorist attack.
Over the past year, however, my attempts--along with the efforts of a
bipartisan coalition of my colleagues--to work with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to address concerns about one of those risk-
based grants, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), have been
fruitless. This experience has led me to question whether we are
successfully directing funds as this grant was intended.
For this reason, I am introducing the Urban Area Security Initiative
Improvement Act of 2007. Using the information I have gleaned over the
past year, this legislation will ensure the grant functions as it was
proposed. It will also make certain that instead of making arbitrary
decisions, DHS uses conclusive data to inform its policy.
The questions surrounding the UASI grant arose last January, when DHS
released a list of 35 urban areas considered eligible to apply for UASI
funding through the FY 2006 process. Eleven additional areas, including
Sacramento, the Congressional District I represent, were placed in a
second group and notified that their UASI funding may be terminated in
future years if they did not meet the new risk assessment standards.
When DHS announced that Sacramento's UASI funds may be in jeopardy,
the decision seemed unwarranted. Sacramento has a population of almost
two million people, and is the capital of California--the most populous
state in the nation and the sixth largest economy in the world. The
city is also home to dozens of critical federal and state government
buildings and much of the state's water, electricity, and
telecommunication systems are managed from Sacramento. To suffer an
attack would have repercussions beyond our region.
Immediately after learning about the changes to the UASI program, I
requested meetings with DHS officials to understand their new risk
assessment guidelines. After unsatisfactory responses from DHS, I led a
coalition of my colleagues to demand information regarding DHS's
revised guidelines for eligibility in an effort to urge them to change
their policy.
The Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, colleagues from San
Diego and Sacramento, both of California's United States Senators and I
requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into
the UASI grant process. The preliminary findings of that investigation
were completed in mid-December. GAO analyzed the risk methodology and
the effectiveness of the assessment, in addition to reviewing planned
changes to both in the upcoming year. The report confirmed that DHS had
made many arbitrary decisions during their UASI determination that
skewed the outcomes of the risk-scenarios and grant awards.
Of particular concern is that DHS arbitrarily cut the number of
eligible cities to 35 and created a second group of 11 of which were
only able to apply for ``sustainment'' funding. Additionally, DHS
assigned arbitrary values to assets and population without running a
study of how the variation in the output of models (numerical or
otherwise) used for such awards can be manipulated--a process commonly
referred to as a ``sensitivity'' analysis. This analysis would have
ensured that any changes to these values have little or no impact on
the ranking of each urban area.
Both 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the role our first
responders play in any incident, whether an act of terrorism or mother
nature. And the Urban Area Security Initiative is a critical component
to ensuring the preparedness of those brave men and women and,
ultimately, our nation's preparedness. We all recognize that we need to
direct our limited resources towards the most at-risk locations.
However, and DHS has acknowledged this, they have overlooked critical
infrastructure. These arbitrary decisions may have influenced the
outcome of the UASI grant. This is poor national security policy and in
an era when national security is a priority, it is unacceptable.
DHS will shortly be announcing those urban areas that will be
eligible to apply for funding. However, Sacramento and all heavily
populated urban areas will have to worry each year about whether DHS
will arbitrarily change the number of eligible cities and thus, if they
will even be able to apply for funding. This places significant and
undue burdens on our regional homeland security efforts, as first
responders attempt to prepare for and protect against any future
threat, without knowing from year to year whether they can even apply
for funding.
That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The UASI
Improvement Act will allow the 100 most populous urban areas, as
determined by the census and the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, to apply for UASI funds. While each urban area does
not have to apply, this will guarantee that those urban areas who
believe they need the funding or who find that they meet the
eligibility guidelines as determined by DHS will be able to at least
apply for these vital funds.
The bill also mandates that DHS conduct a sensitivity analysis. The
GAO found DHS's decision to arbitrarily assign values during the risk-
assignment without conducting a sensitivity analysis to be a
significant flaw in the UASI grant determination process. By conducting
such an analysis, DHS will have conclusive data rather than uninformed
decisions to guide their decision-making.
Our local law enforcement and first responders continue to do an
incredible job understanding the threats facing our country and are
working hard to prevent and prepare for an attack. And while these
heroes are doing their jobs, the federal government needs to do its
job. Part of that is providing leadership by setting standards and the
other is to provide resources. My concern is that the federal
government has been shirking its responsibility, and so I am
introducing legislation to make sure that Sacramento and all at-risk
urban areas have the funding they need.
Madam Speaker, the Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act
will guarantee that our most at-risk urban areas will have access to
necessary federal funds, which our first responders and law enforcement
need in order to protect our citizens. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to pass this bill in the newly-elected ll0th Congress.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LARRY KING

______

HON. BILL SHUSTER

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true
giant in the transportation community and a dedicated servant

[[Page 373]]

of the citizens of Pennsylvania, Larry King. After more than 30 years
of service, Mr. King will be retiring from Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDot) later this month. While Larry's retirement is
certainly well deserved and will provide him with more time to spend
with his wife Betty and their family, all of Pennsylvania will feel the
impact of his departure.
Larry joined PennDot in 1969 and has served in a variety of positions
with a special focus on planning and programming. In 1991, Mr. King was
appointed to serve as Deputy Secretary of Planning. In that role, he
was responsible for overseeing the statewide planning process,
maintaining the Commonwealth's 12 year plan and the management the
state's highway and bridge program which consist of a yearly budget of
roughly $1.25 billion. Additionally, Larry was charged with the
difficult task of ensuring that projects moved forward in a timely and
cost efficient manner.
In his time at PennDot, Larry has been a tremendous resource for
members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation. He never
hesitated to share his expertise with Members or our staff. When
Congress took up the historic Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21), it was Larry's counsel that Members sought in their
effort to ensure that Pennsylvania received its fair share of highway
and transit funding. I think we all can agree that Pennsylvania
certainly benefitted from his counsel. Larry not only possesses an
intimate knowledge of the federal process, he also holds a true passion
for improving transportation within the Commonwealth. Indeed, I remain
convinced that there is not a road in Pennsylvania on which Larry King
has not traveled.
For more than 30 years, Larry has remained dedicated to serving the
citizens of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth has benefitted
exponentially from his service. The numerous projects that have moved
forward under his watchful eye will greatly benefit not only
Pennsylvanians, but all who travel through the Commonwealth. While we
all wish Larry all the best in his retirement, we must also let him
know how much he will be missed. Thank you, Larry, for your many years
of service and your friendship.

____________________

THERE'S A NEW LAWMAN IN TOWN: CHRISTOPHER JAMES McCAIN

______

HON. TED POE

of texas

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, earlier this week, as the sun set in
southeast Texas, on January 3, 2007, 35 highly-trained, well-
disciplined, dedicated disciples of the law were sworn in as new
Houston Police Officers. One of those officers was Christopher McCain.
McCain comes from a law enforcement family. His stepfather, Eddie, an
HPD Officer for over 25 years, pinned the new police badge on McCain at
the Police Academy Graduation. Present at the graduation were his proud
mother, Janet, who has spent most of her career helping people of the
Houston community, and his brother Ryne.
Madam Speaker, peace officers are the last strand of wire in the
fence between good and evil. They are what separate us from the anarchy
of the lawless. By wearing the badge, they swear to protect, defend,
and serve the citizens.
McCain, 28 (born 1978), is a single parent of 2 small children. His
youthful wife met an untimely death in 2005. When this occurred, McCain
accepted the duty to raise his children alone.
Although becoming an HPD officer is the beginning of a new career,
McCain has spent his life in public service. After receiving his GED,
McCain volunteered and joined the U.S. Marine Corps. He served 4 years
on active duty as a non- commissioned officer in Special Operations,
assigned to the desert sands of the Middle East and he also served in
Japan. After being discharged, he was recalled to active duty in 2003.
McCain's dramatic enthusiasm for serving our Nation as a Marine was
another trait of our Nation's great warriors.
Here's what President Ronald Reagan said about the Marines:

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a
difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that
problem.

Christopher McCain was one of those Marines.
When his tour of duty was over with the Marine Corps, McCain went to
work for the Harris County (Houston), Texas Juvenile Probation
Department. He was a Master Sergeant in the training division of the
boot camp. Boot camp teaches youthful offenders discipline, hard work,
and self worth. He spent 5 years (2001-2006) helping the troubled youth
of the streets of Houston.
But all of his life, Christopher McCain wanted to be a peace officer.
Now that dream has been accomplished. Christopher McCain is a Texas
Lawman!
Peace officers, who wear the badge, are the best we have to offer to
our towns and cities. Serving the people, protecting the citizens,
capturing outlaws and bringing them to justice, is what these peace
officers do for the rest of us.
In Houston, we call our peace officers ``Houston's Finest.'' Officer
Christopher McCain is now one of those who wear the badge and the blue
uniform of ``Houston's Finest.'' He, like his fellow peace officers, is
a cut above the rest of us--and that's just the way it is.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, as part of this first
100 hours of the 110th Congress, I am proud to introduce the Fair
Minimum Wage Act of 2007. The introduction of this bill provides
Congress with a long-overdue opportunity to stand up for the dignity of
those 5.6 million workers in the United States making minimum wage, or
near minimum wage.
The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 would increase the federal minimum
wage to $7.25 per hour in three steps over two years. Under this bill,
sixty days after enactment, the wage would rise from the current $5.15
per hour to $5.85 per hour. One year later, it would rise to $6.55. And
a year after that, it would finally rise to $7.25 per hour. The bill
also extends federal minimum wage coverage, under a separate timetable,
to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
For almost a decade, the federal minimum wage has remained at just
$5.15 an hour. The nation's poorest workers have suffered through the
longest period in the history of the law without a pay raise. As a
result of congressional inaction, the real value of the minimum wage
has hit a 51-year low. If the rate remains unchanged in 2007, a minimum
wage employee working full-time will earn only $10,712, which is $5,888
less than the $16,600 needed to lift a family of three out of poverty.
This is unconscionable. These Americans have suffered at poverty wages
for far too long. It is time for Congress to demonstrate that it values
hard work.
Nearly 13 million American workers will see their pay rise as a
result of the Fair Minimum Wage Act--5.6 million workers directly and
7.4 million workers indirectly. This number includes 7.7 million women,
3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color. 79 percent of
these workers are adults, and the majority of these workers work full-
time.
Families with affected workers rely on those workers for more than
half of their family's income. 46 percent of child-rearing families
with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those workers.
If this bill becomes law, over 6.3 million children would see their
parents' income rise. For a family of three this means an additional
$4,400 a year, equaling 15 months worth of groceries or two years worth
of health care for these families. It will mean greater dignity on the
job.
Congress has a moral duty to raise the minimum wage. Churches,
synagogues, and other faith groups are calling on Congress to support
the Fair Minimum Wage Act. In this country, an average CEO earns more
before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage worker earns all year.
This is a moral outrage in the richest country on earth. With the costs
of health insurance, gasoline, and college tuition increasing, it is
important, now more than ever, that we raise the minimum wage so that
these hard working Americans are able to meet basic human needs.
Raising the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do, it is
also economically prudent. Increasing the minimum wage will help boost
the economy as a whole, putting more money into the hands of those
people who need it and will spend it--indeed, spend it on basic
necessities. Last year, some 665 economists, including several Nobel
Laureates, signed a statement in support of raising the minimum wage.
As they explained, the ``minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance
in bargaining power that low-wage workers face in the labor market. The
minimum wage is also an important tool in fighting poverty.''

[[Page 374]]

Raising the minimum wage is critical to fighting the middle class
squeeze in this country. America's middle class is this country's
economic backbone. It is what makes us strong. Yet the middle class is
shrinking. Since 2001, the number of Americans living in poverty has
increased by 5.4 million, to 37 million. More than one in six American
children now lives in poverty. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is an
important first step for this new Congress in its efforts to stand up
for the middle class and to stem the squeeze.

____________________

INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act.
The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme
Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices
relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases
involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We
the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage
from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the
equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal
judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that
a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall
either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according
to rules established by the Congress.
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to
establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and
limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended
Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the
federal judiciary.
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state
laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim
overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is
decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to
liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully
limits the power of the federal government over the states.
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal
courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on
subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family
relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal
judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's
limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose
their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of
respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus
accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened.
Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each
state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the
executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of
the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop
Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The
Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign
in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place
manger scenes at Christmas.
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have
admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which
overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The
Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn
criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly,
attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion
and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase
social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial
social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for
the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect
the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my
colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional
system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of
Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage
and school prayer.
Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate
marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a
decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence
case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical
conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any
further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate
marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from
the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states,
government did not create the institution of marriage. Government
regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices
and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil
institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal
officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new
definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering
profoundly hostile to liberty.
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect
the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal
judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People
Act.

____________________

MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION LEGISLATION

______

HON. VERNON J. EHLERS

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a package of
four bills aimed at improving our nation's math and science education
at the pre-school through university levels.
Too often, our young students lack the academic background necessary
to learn math and science skills in elementary school. The Math and
Science School Readiness Act
(H.R. ) promotes pre-mathematics and pre-science school readiness in
preschool-aged children enrolled in the federal Head Start program. The
bill updates the current law provision that requires that Head Start
programs develop preschoolers' ``numeracy skills'' by requiring that
such programs instead ensure that children develop and demonstrate
basic pre-math and pre-science skills, such as counting, grouping
similar objects together, and deciphering whether items have been added
or subtracted. I included a similar provision in the major Head Start
reauthorization bills that passed the House in 2003 and 2005, but
unfortunately these bills did not become law.
Now more than ever, our nation's future economic competitiveness and
national security will depend upon a workforce equipped with necessary
math and science skills. Our students lag behind their international
peers on several key indicators, and our states and schools are not
held accountable for K-12 science education. The Science Accountability
Act (H.R. ) holds states and schools accountable for ensuring that our
K-12 students are learning science. It amends the federal No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 to require that the science assessments, which begin
in the 2007-2008 school year, be included in the state's accountability
system beginning in the 2008-2009 school year. It also gradually phases
in annual assessments in science in grades 3-8, matching the existing
requirements for reading and math assessments.
This package of math and science bills also provides resources for
improving math and science education. A tandem of bills provides
incentives for teachers and businesses to enhance math and science
education.
A key component of high-quality math and science education is a
qualified teaching workforce. The National Science Education Tax
Incentive for Teachers Act (H.R. ) helps bring qualified math and
science teachers to our K-12 schools and helps retain them. Eligible
teachers may receive a tax credit of up to $1,500 per year.
A former science educator, I understand that students should learn
math and science primarily by doing math and science. Schools lack the
necessary equipment and some teachers lack training in how to use the
equipment. The National Science Education Tax Incentive for Businesses
Act (H.R. ) encourages businesses to donate new and needed math and
science-related equipment to schools or donate teacher training
services. Businesses may receive a tax credit equal to 100 percent of
the value of their donations.
I am hopeful that the House and Senate can quickly act on this
legislative package and that President Bush will sign the bills so that
our nation's math and science education may be improved on all levels.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MR. ANTHONY L'ESPERANCE

______

HON. GARY G. MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mr.
Anthony L'Esperance, a fellow southern Californian.

[[Page 375]]

Mr. L'Esperance has lived a long and distinguished life. During World
War II, he honorably served as a Lieutenant Commander in the Merchant
Marines. His duty and commitment to this great nation have helped build
the pillars of hope, peace and freedom that so many in the world still
look up to.
Mr. L'Esperance was also featured in the pages of Life magazine for
his work as a master magician and is credited for inventing a precise
slide-calendar that incorporates the days lost due to the switch from
Julian to Gregorian calendars.
But his greatest accomplishment and passion in life is his family.
For more than 62 years, Mr. L'Esperance has been married to his wife
Mary. They have been blessed with a son, Paul, a daughter-in-law, Jan,
and granddaughter, Morgan.
Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that this 110th Congress join me in
saluting Mr. L'Esperance for his service to our country and community.

____________________

RENEWABLE ENERGY COULD TRANSFORM HAITI

______

HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with my
colleagues the following op-ed that appeared last week in the Orlando
Sentinel. This article discusses how a U.S.-backed biomass policy for
Haiti could move our Caribbean neighbor away from the trajectory of
state failure. As the article notes: ``Support for bioenergy as part of
the solution to Haiti's economic dilemma--unemployment and lack of
energy--could advance the development of Haiti, and reinforce the
governance and security reforms that Haitians so desperately deserve.''
I hope all of my colleagues keep this article in mind as we enter the
110th Congress.

[From the Orlando Sentinel, Dec. 26, 2006]

Hope After H.O.P.E. for Haiti?

(By Johanna Mendelson-Forman)

In its final hours, the 109th Congress gave new life to
Haiti's manufacturing sector, passing a trade bill that
included the H.O.P.E legislation that would create up to
7,000 new jobs by allowing Haitian assembly plants to import,
duty-free, textiles that would be made into clothing for the
U.S. market. While not a long-term solution to Haiti's ills,
the symbolism of this action went further to bolster the
morale of the Haitian private sector than anything in recent
years.
Haiti suffers from many problems, not the least of which is
lack of jobs. Violence and kidnappings continue to undermine
security in Port au Prince. Even with the presence of a
robust U.N. Peace Mission, a country of 8 million people
without jobs spells insecurity. The rigorous effort by the
international community to reinvent the Haitian National
Police is only part of the solution to a complex country
where law enforcement is franchised to many different groups
rather than controlled by the state. What vexes those who
want Haiti to succeed is just how to create a viable and
sustainable development program.
While H.O.P.E may represent a small victory, other positive
signs may auger for a different approach. A donor's meeting
at the end of November in Madrid yielded almost $80 million
to support good governance. And the World Bank decision to
offer Haiti debt reduction also will help alleviate the drain
on Haiti's limited revenue. Successful municipal elections
held this month marked the first time since 1995 that
Haitians democratically elected leaders of local government.
And even a new effort to create a non-corrupt civil service
is under way.
But the most promising signs that may make the difference
in the coming years will be centered on a push to help Haiti
become energy independent through the use of biomass energy.
Renewable energy could transform Haiti. A World Bank study
reported that growing energy crops creates jobs in addition
to fuel. In a country totally dependent on foreign oil for
its energy needs, such independence could prove
revolutionary.
This is not science fiction. Haiti is a perfect candidate
for growing oil-seed crops. In rural areas, where 70 percent
of the population remains engaged in subsistence agriculture,
developing an indigenous biofuels market could transform the
countryside and prevent the urban migration that continues to
swell the slums of Port au Prince.
The environment could also be saved. And the proven anti-
erosion qualities of seed crops like Jatropha and Castor bean
could also revitalize the soil in a country that is 96
percent deforested and where every rainfall puts thousands of
people at risk for natural disasters. And with crops such as
Jatropha, the bush is a natural fence since its leaves are
poisonous to animals.
Unfortunately, helping Haiti to become energy self-
sufficient is not a priority for donors despite the potential
it represents. It never came up at the Madrid meeting. And
U.S. development assistance has yet to see this type of
sustainable agriculture in Haiti as a means of long-term
poverty alleviation.
If real hope is to be restored in Haiti, it must go beyond
the trade incentives embodied in the H.O.P.E legislation.
Urgent action is needed so that a U.S. biomass policy for the
Caribbean addresses not only the regional dilemma of foreign
oil dependency, but also moves Haiti away from the trajectory
of state failure, a threat that U.S. policymakers consider a
grave danger to U.S. interests.
With Brazil as the lead nation in the U.N. peace operation
in Haiti, the technical means for bio-energy transformation
could get underway within the next year. The combined power
of U.S. economic support, coupled with Brazil's biomass
expertise, could certainly be applied to a place such as
Haiti. It could also demonstrate that ending addiction to
fossil fuels, a goal President Bush endorses, can also be
applied to one of the great development challenges in our
hemisphere.
In a country just a two-hour flight from the U.S. mainland,
the risk of state failure looms large. Support for bioenergy
as part of the solution to Haiti's economic dilemma--
unemployment and lack of energy--could advance the
development of Haiti, and reinforce the governance and
security reforms that Haitians so desperately deserve.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MAYOR HARRY KESSLER

______

HON. MARCY KAPTUR

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, late in the night of January 2, 2007, our
community lost a giant. Our beloved ``once and ways'' Mayor Harry
Kessler, who symbolized honest and dedicated leadership in the public
realm, has passed from this life.
He set a community standard that endures. His tenure as Mayor from
1971 through 1977 brought growth and vitality to a struggling city, and
his imprimatur is everywhere. He followed his Mayoral leadership by
holding other elected offices for two decades after he decided to
retire as Mayor. Few have defined the Mayor of Toledo as did Mayor
Harry Kessler. A beloved father for our City, he lived and breathed his
life to better our city and region. His kind and gentlemanly manner,
his eternal smile, and his deep commitment to integrity, learning and
libraries, community service, and athletics have left permanent
legacies to future generations.
Mayor Kessler was a builder, a healer, a leader who knew how to bring
our community together not just for today but for tomorrow. We can each
learn much from him as we emulate his life of service to us, in the
private sector, in public office, and so many other community ventures.
His deep love for our City that he always called home inspired us all.
He did all he could to make our place on earth a finer and more humane
place in which to live.
We extend deepest sympathy and gratitude to his soulmate and partner
for over half a century, Mary Lou, his children and extended family. We
wish them strength and peace as, together, we adjust to his passing
from life with us. May God rest his soul and place him in a leading
role in the City beyond stars to watch over our earthly pursuits.

____________________

IT'S TIME TO STOP THE SLAUGHTER OF A LIVING SYMBOL OF THE AMERICAN WEST

______

HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation that
I first authored in the 109th Congress to restore the prohibition on
the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and
burros. I am again joined in this effort by my good friend and
colleague from Kentucky, Ed Whitfield.
In both 2005 and 2006 the House adopted amendments I offered to the
Interior and Environment Appropriations bill to prohibit the use of
Federal funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and
burros. While we were successful in the House, neither amendment made
it into law. In any event, these amendments would have only been a
temporary 1-year fix. What is needed is a permanent solution to this
problem. That is why I am offering my legislation today.

[[Page 376]]

It was just a little over 2 years ago that 36 lines were hidden away
in a 1,641-page appropriations bill that overturned more than 30 years
of national policy on the protection and management of wild free-
roaming horses and burros, allowing these ``living symbols of the
historic and pioneer spirit of the West'' to literally be slaughtered
through the use of a backdoor legislative maneuver enacted without
public notice or input.
The public reaction to this change in law was swift and deafening.
There was a good reason why it had been illegal for more than 30 years
to sell or transfer wild free-roaming wild horses and burros for
processing into commercial products. Americans were aghast to learn
that these animals could be slaughtered for their meat to be served on
dinner tables in such foreign countries as France, Belgium, and Japan.
Horses are an integral part of the tapestry of this country--a
symbol, a promise of possibility, a companion, and a treasured
childhood memory. Americans have always championed their survival, and
expect that that these creatures will be protected. To allow them to be
sacrificed and slaughtered represents great disrespect to the will of
the American people and is an affront to our nation's history.
Instead of addressing long-term and widespread management problems
the Bureau of Land Management, which administers the wild horse and
burro program, has been forced to scurry to try to stop wild horses and
burros from being sent to slaughter. Unfortunately for several dozen of
these animals their attempts came too late and slaughter occurred.
Slaughter is all the more senseless since humane alternatives exist
and federal agencies have the authority to carry out such humane
measures as adoption, sterilization, relocation, and placement with
qualified individuals and organizations.
The time has long since passed to restore the prohibition on the sale
and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I urge my
colleague to heed the will of the American public and respond to common
decency by supporting my legislation. We owe no less to these living
symbols of the American West.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO MR. LARRY N. DANTZLER

______

HON. ALLEN BOYD

of florida

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the
exceptional service of Mr. Larry N. Dantzler on behalf of Bay County
military installations.
Mr. Dantzler is stepping down as the president of the Bay Defense
Alliance, which is a group of volunteers committed to enhancing and
preserving the missions of Tyndall Air Force Base and the Naval Support
Activity Panama City.
Larry has served as its leader since the groups formation in 1993,
and has spent countless hours in his role to defend these installations
as Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) loomed. Under his leadership,
the Bay Defense Alliance helped defend our installations in Bay County
against two rounds of BRAC. Members of the Bay Defense Alliance have
logged more than 15,000 volunteer hours in their efforts supporting the
bases.
Mr. Dantzler has served as an advocate for the more than 11,000 men
and women who serve our nation in support of Tyndall AFB, the Naval
Support Activity Panama City and the Coast Guard Station Panama City.
His hard work has helped build military and Congressional support for
important missions in Bay County. He has served tirelessly as a liaison
between Bay County, State, and Federal leadership in defense of our
local bases.
This has been a job requiring great dedication--which he has done
splendidly--despite his additional obligations as a business owner and
his many other volunteer efforts. His additional volunteer efforts
include work with the Bay County Chamber of Commerce, of which he is a
past chairman, Rotary, United Way, Optimist Club, Bay Medical Center
Foundation, Gulf Coast Community College Foundation, Panama City-Bay
County International Airport Authority, Gulf Coast Community College
Board of Trustees, Coastal Operations Institute, Girls Inc., Panama
City Music Association, Bay Arts Alliance and others.
I invite my distinguished colleagues to join me in paying special
tribute to Larry N. Dantzler for his invaluable service to Bay County,
Florida. Through his leadership, he has laid the groundwork for
preservation of our military installations for years to come and I
would like to personally wish Larry, and his wife Nancy, the very best
in their future endeavors.

____________________

TRIBUTE ON THE PASSING OF DAVID HERMANCE--THE FATHER OF THE AMERICAN
PRIUS

______

HON. JANE HARMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David
Hermance, who was killed in a plane crash in southern California on
November 25th. David was the North American Executive Engineer for
Advanced Technology Vehicles at Toyota, whose headquarters is located
in my congressional district.
Although most Americans may not know his name, David Hermance was one
of the most influential engineers and environmentalists in the country.
He was only 59 years old when the experimental aircraft he was piloting
crashed into the Pacific Ocean, and his tragic death is a stunning loss
not only for his family, but for the larger community he served.
Equally respected in the environmental community and the automotive
industry, David was known as the ``Father of the American Prius''--and
for good reason. He had a knack for translating complex systems and
technologies into easy-to-understand concepts, and he worked tirelessly
to help lay-people understand the workings and benefits of hybrid and
other advanced-technology vehicles.
It was David's passionate approach and commitment to the environment
that helped persuade a skeptical industry and auto-buying public to
appreciate the enormous potential of his work. In fact, Madam Speaker,
my family drives two hybrid vehicles--one in California and the other
in Washington, DC.
David will be sorely missed--as an outstanding individual and beloved
colleague. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family: his wife Mary,
his children Keith and Kathy, his grandson Colin and sister Bonnie.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE IMPACT AID SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BILL

______

HON. LEE TERRY

of nebraska

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to
help schools educating the children of U.S. service members and schools
serving Native American children on federal lands.
My legislation will improve the distribution of school construction
grants under the Impact Aid program. Impact Aid compensates schools
affected by a federal presence such as military installations or Native
American reservations. Because federal lands are exempt from local
property taxes, school districts located on or near federal lands lose
a major source of revenue without the federal Impact Aid program.
Currently, school construction grants under Impact Aid allow unequal
funding between military school districts and Native American school
districts. For example, although 36 percent of the 1 million federal
students are from military impacted schools, the majority of school
construction dollars are spent on the 12 percent of Native American
students.
In 2005 and 2004, $27 million in Impact Aid competitive construction
grants were awarded. In 2005, only 1 of 8 competitive grants was
awarded to a military impacted school district. In 2004, only three of
15 recipients were military school districts, and only one of 17
recipients in 2003 was a military school. In contrast, the formula
grants under the Impact Aid School Construction program are equally
distributed between military and Native American schools.
Considering that Impact Aid has historically been underfunded in
meeting the needs of local school districts serving military and Native
American families, this legislation is critical to ensure the most
equitable use of available dollars.
Instead of sending 60 percent of funding toward 12 percent of federal
students, the legislation I am introducing today would ensure 80
percent of school construction funding will be equally distributed
between military and Native American schools. This approach will help
ensure a high-quality education for the children of our military
members selflessly serving our Nation. Priority would also be given to
Native American districts in qualifying for emergency construction
grants in recognition of the poor condition of too many Native American
schools.
This legislation will also help schools affected by Global Rebasing
at the Department of Defense (DoD). Over the next 4 years, DoD

[[Page 377]]

estimates that 38,000 military children will be returning to U.S.
schools from closing overseas military bases. Under this legislation,
schools that experience a 10 percent increase in the number of military
students would be allowed to apply for emergency Impact Aid
construction grants.
I am confident this excellent legislation will improve the Impact Aid
program to better serve American families. I am proud that both Native
American school districts and military-impacted school districts
support the common-sense approach of this bill. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on the reauthorization of Impact Aid later
this year, and urge every Member of Congress to review and cosponsor
this legislation.

____________________

HONORING MICHAEL LOFTON AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN AND BOYS
CONFERENCE

______

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
honor Michael Lofton, an inspirational leader who is working each day
to make a difference in the lives of young people in his community.
This past summer Mr. Lofton implemented an idea to bring together 200
boys, men and parents in the first African American Men and Boys
Conference. His goal was to counteract the trends where African
American boys were lagging academically, disrupting classes,
disrespecting themselves, and often ending up incarcerated.
His passion for helping children led him to the Austin School
District, where he contacted parents, school principals, health
specialists, professors, sociologists, judges, law-enforcement,
businesses, community leaders and clergy, in order to create a
concentrated effort to support young black men and boys in the Austin
community.
The monthly African American Men and Boys Conference has continued to
increase in participation since its inception this past June. It has
also expanded from focusing on boys and their academic needs to working
with the entire family to make a difference. Each month these boys and
their families focus good decision making, managing anger, taking and
passing standardized tests, completing high school, attending college,
maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and knowing how and when to seek
assistance with school work,
It is people like Michael Lofton that are the cornerstone of our
communities making a difference each and every day. He was brave enough
and passionate enough to go out into the community and establish his
vision for change, and he has inspired others to work with him to
better our society. I commend Michael Lofton for all the work that he
has done, and know that this is merely the first step of many great
things to come.

____________________

HONORING SISTER MABLE WILLIAMS

______

HON. BARBARA LEE

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of
Sister Mable Williams, a longtime resident of Oakland, California.
Sister Mable is a role model to us all, and has demonstrated her
leadership through her commitment to members of her church as well as
the community at large. On Sunday, December 31, 2006, Sister Mable's
friends, family and congregation will come together to celebrate her
many contributions.
Sister Mable was born on January 25, 1931 in Picayune, Mississippi.
She lived there until the age of 13, when she and her family moved to
Alameda, California. She attended Alameda High School and Merritt
Business School.
In 1953, Sister Mable married Thomas Williams, and in 1955 they moved
to Oakland, California. Mable and her family have lived in Brookfield
Village in East Oakland since that time, providing spiritual support to
family, friends and neighbors. She also served as an employee of the
United States Post Office for over 30 outstanding years, retiring in
1989.
Sister Mable joined Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in 1944 and
immediately committed herself to serving in many aspects. For example,
she served as a Charter Member of the church, and also as a secretary
for the pastor, Reverend Herbert Guice. Furthermore, she served as a
Charter Member of the Bethel Bible Class, and as a Sunday School
Teacher of the Young Adult class.
One of Sister Mable's most outstanding accomplishments is having
served as the Director of the Junior Church of the Bethel Missionary
Baptist Church for 50 years. Under her leadership, countless young
people have had opportunities to serve and to brighten their
communities. Her dedication has earned her the nickname ``Able Mable,''
because she is never too busy or too tired to give of herself.
On Sunday, December 31, 2006, the friends, family and colleagues of
Sister Mable Williams will come together to celebrate her tireless work
and commitment to our community. On this very special day, I join all
of them in thanking and saluting Sister Mable for her invaluable
service, and for the profoundly positive impact her work has had on
countless lives here in California's 9th U.S. Congressional District.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MAJOR GENERAL RICHARD A. PLATT

______

HON. THOMAS M. REYNOLDS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today
to honor a respected military officer and great fighter pilot upon the
occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force and Air
National Guard after 36 years of honorable and dedicated service.
Born in Silver Creek, New York, growing up in Suffern, New York,
Major General Richard A. Platt began his military career June 1971 when
he received his commission through the Reserve Officer Training Corps
at Newark College of Engineering. After earning his pilot wings in June
1972, he flew F-4 Phantom fighter aircraft and was assigned to front
line combat units in Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States.
Madam Speaker, from his early days as a fighter pilot in Vietnam to
his role as a fighter weapons instructor General Platt has shown
impressive leadership and combat flying skills. His flying experience
includes two combat tours of duty, one in Vietnam and the other over
the skies of Bosnia.
In 1981, Major General Platt left the active duty air force and
continued his service flying the A-10 Warthog as a member of the 104th
Fighter Wing of the Massachusetts Air National Guard. General Platt
time and time again demonstrated his unparalleled vision and
leadership. As a commander, he led the transformation of the 104th
Fighter Wing into one of the premier fighting units in the entire
American military.
Madam Speaker, following his flying career, General Platt served with
distinction as he continued to provide vision and leadership to the Air
National Guard. His assignments included commander of the Massachusetts
Air National Guard and Air National Guard Assistant to the Commander of
both Air Combat Command as well as United States Air Forces Europe. His
last post brought him to Washington, D.C. where he was Assistant to the
Director of the Air National Guard. In this role, General Platt was
instrumental in beginning important changes to ensure the relevance and
viability of the Air National Guard and United States Air Force, in
this most challenging period of our country's history.
Madam Speaker, General Platt's dedication to the military has been
evident from the day he joined his ROTC unit to his last tour of duty
at the Pentagon; but perhaps more than any other assignment, nothing
was more special to him than his role as commander of the 104th Fighter
Wing. Even today, several years after General Platt's tenure, the wing
is still recognized as an elite unit--his core values of integrity,
dedication to duty, and patriotism remain strong. General Platt
recognized that the fighter wing and our entire military are only as
strong as the lowest ranking member--and no one member was more
important than any other. For him the 104th Fighter Wing was more than
just officers and airmen, they were, and still remain his family.
Madam Speaker, each and every American is safer and freer due to the
service of Major General Platt and the men and women like him serving
across all of our armed services.
Madam Speaker, in recognition of and in gratitude for his service,
leadership and patriotism, I ask that this honorable body join me in
honoring Major General Richard A. Platt upon the occasion of his
retirement; and wish him great health and happiness in the days and
years ahead as a father, husband and grandfather.

[[Page 378]]

____________________

THE 110TH CONGRESS

______

HON. JAY INSLEE

of washington

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, yesterday, January 4, 2007, marked a
historic day for progress in the United States of America for two
reasons. The House of Representatives grew by taking further steps to
represent the full fabric of the American people. The American people
have selected their first woman speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and their first
Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison. I am proud that Americans
have rejected the statements from some who alleged Americans of all
faiths are not welcome in Congress. This is also the first time the
American people are represented by a speaker with a clear goal to move
the United States towards energy independence. These advances represent
steps forward in America's continuing experiment in democracy in which
Congress represents America's stripes.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE JOURNEY THROUGH HOLLOWED GROUND NATIONAL HERITAGE
AREA ACT

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to create
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. Senator
Warner will be introducing companion legislation in the Senate.
We remember the words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address:

We cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow
this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled
here, have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or
detract.

The Journey Through Hallowed Ground winds it way along U.S. Route 15
from Jefferson's home of Monticello, in Charlottesville, Virginia to
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Starting as a trail used by the Susquehannock
and Iroquois, America's early history can literally be traced along
this corridor. Jefferson's Monticello, Madison's Montpellier, Monroe's
Oak Hill and Ashlawn Highland, Zachary Taylor's homes, Eisenhower's
cottage, Teddy Roosevelt's cabin, John Marshall's home, General George
Marshall's home, and Camp David are situated along this route also
dotted with numerous Civil War battlefields and sites from the
underground railroad.
Designation of this historic route as a National Heritage Area will
create a partnership between the federal, state, and local governments
as well as local civic organizations to commemorate, conserve and
promote the history and resources along the Route 15 corridor between
Gettysburg and Monticello. It will help link national parks to
historical sites, package tourism opportunities, and provide financial
and technical support for sites in the corridor.
This historic corridor includes a significant part of the 10th
District of Virginia, which I am proud to represent. I echo the
sentiments of author and historian David McCullough when he said that
``[t]his is the ground of our Founding Fathers. These are the
landscapes that speak volumes--small towns, churches, fields,
mountains, creeks and rivers with names such as Bull Run and
Rappahannock. They are the real thing, and what shame we will bring
upon ourselves if we destroy them.''
This bill is modeled after the legislation Senator Warner and I
introduced which created the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National
Historic District in the Shenandoah Valley in 1996. Through that
legislation, the Civil War battlefield sites in the Valley are being
preserved. As with that bill, local, state and federal officials,
working along with landowners and business leaders will be able to
better promote the history of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground
attracting tourism and an appreciation for the unique history of this
area.
I would like to thank the Journey Through Hollowed Ground Partnership
which has been working to forge partnerships that span the four states
that fall within the proposed boundaries of the heritage area. This
group has laid the groundwork in identifying the significant historical
properties within such a concentrated area along U.S. Route 15. Dozens
of towns and counties along the corridor have offered letters of
support as have local civic groups. The Virginia General Assembly also
has approved a resolution of support.
This legislation has been painstakingly drafted to ensure that the
rights of private property owners within the district will not be
usurped. In fact, designation as a heritage area increases the rights
of property owners giving them an opportunity to learn more about the
significance of their own property and allowing them to market their
property as historically significant. Landowners should have the right
to choose preservation and protection along with the right to choose to
build town homes, malls and highways.
The legislation clearly states: ``Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to modify the authority of Federal, State, or local
governments to regulate land use.'' Additionally, the only new federal
funds accessible to The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership
will be for the management of the heritage area.
The bill also specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain and
the ability of the management entity to regulate land use. The
Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan research service for
the legislative branch, has investigated the effect of a heritage area
designation on land use decisions. Its 2004 report states: ``Heritage
area officials, Park Service headquarters and regional staff, and
representatives of national property rights groups that we contacted
were unable to provide us with any examples of a heritage area directly
affecting--positively or negatively--private property values or use.''
This legislation is a local effort to recognize the history and
beauty of this region. The organizers are local landowners who have the
vision to appreciate that they live among the nation's most precious
resources and history. The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership
conducted a poll of the residents in the heritage area and found that
81 percent of those polled expressed support for the initiative.
To understand the importance of this initiative, I refer to the words
of Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

You stand on a very high point of land. On your right comes
up the Shenandoah, having ranged along the foot of the
mountain a hundred miles to seek a vent. On your left
approaches the Potomac, in quest of a passage also. In the
moment of their junction, they rush together against the
mountain, rend it asunder, and pass off to the sea. The first
glance of this scene hurries our senses into the opinion that
this earth has been created in time, that the mountains were
formed first, that the rivers began to flow afterwards, that
in this place, particularly, they have been dammed up by the
Blue Ridge of mountains, and have formed an ocean which filed
the whole valley; that continuing to rise they have at length
broken over this spot, and have torn the mountains down from
its summit to its base. The piles of rocks on each hand, but
particularly on the Shenandoah, the evident marks of their
disrupture and avulsion from their beds by the most powerful
agents of nature, corroborate the impression. But the distant
finishing, which nature has given to the picture, is of a
very different character. It is a true contrast to the
foreground. It is as placid and delightful as that is wild
and tremendous. For the mountain being cloven asunder, she
presents to your eye, through the cleft, a small catch of
smooth, blue horizon, at an infinite distance in the plain
country, inviting you, as it were, from the riot and tumult
roaring around, to pass through the breach and participate in
the calm below.

The landscape Jefferson depicts has been inspirational to American
leaders for hundreds of years. From Susquehannock Indian trading routes
and to Revolutionary War battles; from the homes of the founding
fathers to the first brave pioneers to make a home beyond the Blue
Ridge Mountains; from the Civil War battles which threatened to divide
the union to the underground railroad, our nation was forged along this
route. From Blue Ridge Mountains to the west and the fertile Piedmont
to the east of the corridor the route in many ways exhibits the birth
and development of our nation's economy, social movements and political
landscape. Perhaps even more significant than the battlefields that
cluster along the route are the documents penned in the homes along the
corridor. The Declaration of Independence, the Monroe Doctrine and the
Marshall Plan have influenced not only this nation, but the entire
world.
Every American citizen should take a trip along this route so that
they know not only from where our nation has come, but also to where we
are going. We cannot stand as a nation unless we know what this nation
stands for.
As we come upon the 400th anniversary this year of America's
birthplace at Jamestown, I urge my colleagues to join with me in
supporting this legislation.

[[Page 379]]

____________________

IMPLEMENTING THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ACT OF 2007

______

HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

of mississippi

in the house of representatives

Friday, January 5, 2007

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the 9/11 Commission
produced an unprecedented, bipartisan evaluation of how terrorists were
able to exploit our nation's security on September 11, 2001. The
Commissioners made 41 valuable recommendations on how to prevent such
an attack from occurring again. Unfortunately, not all of those
recommendations were fulfilled by Congress and the Bush Administration.
As a result, the American people remain at-risk, and our nation remains
unprepared for a major emergency. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
slammed into the Gulf Coast, we were reminded again of how unprepared
we still are to deal with national disasters--whether caused by nature
or a terrorist attack.
The ``Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007,''
which I am introducing today, will make the United States more secure
by closing many of the security gaps that continue to expose our nation
to the risk of a terrorist attack.
Enactment of this legislation will make it more difficult for
terrorists to obtain nuclear materials, ensure that first responders
finally have the equipment they need to respond to a disaster,
airplanes will be more secure, our borders will be harder for
terrorists to penetrate, our police and other local law enforcement
will finally get the information they need about terrorist threats, and
ports and other critical infrastructure will be made more secure.
Perhaps most importantly, this bill makes these improvements in
security without endangering our American way of life because it puts
in place strong new privacy and civil liberties protections.
Specifically, this bill provides much-needed support to the first
responders at the State, local, and tribal levels who bear the brunt of
the emergency response and preparedness burden. The 9-11 Commission
recommended that homeland security funds designed to improve emergency
preparedness be allocated based on risk, and that steps be taken to
provide first responders with communications systems that are fully
interoperable in an emergency. This bill fulfills these recommendations
by providing for risk-based evaluation and prioritization of homeland
security grants and enhanced accountability for grant distribution and
use, so that federal aid will go where it is most needed. Moreover, it
creates a stand-alone grant program to help States, local and tribal
governments erect the interoperable communications systems that are so
vital to effective emergency response. It also encourages the use of a
unified command during an emergency, so that Federal officials work
more closely with State, local, and tribal governments in preparation
and response efforts.
The 9/11 Commission found that many Federal agencies had information
that could have led to the arrest and capture of the September 11th
hijackers, but that this information did not reach the Federal, State,
and local officials who could have acted on it. This bill acts on the
9/11 Commission's recommendation to improve intelligence and
information sharing between Federal authorities and their State and
local counterparts. First, it establishes the Fusion and Law
Enforcement Education and Training (FLEET) Grant Program to strengthen
the capabilities of local fusion centers and to foster cooperation
among State and local law enforcement officers. It also establishes the
Border Intelligence Fusion Center Program, which will put experienced
Federal border security personnel to fusion centers in border States to
enhance collaboration. Additionally, it provides more State and local
law enforcement officers with the opportunity to gain valuable
experience working in Washington with Department of Homeland Security
officials. Finally, it ensures the Department itself has the technology
and organization needed to facilitate intelligence and information
sharing.
Our nation's aviation system, which was easily exploited by the
September 11th hijackers, will also be made more secure through this
bill. The 9/11 Commission found that more steps need to be taken to
secure air cargo and checked baggage and to ensure airport checkpoints
have the equipment necessary to detect explosives. This bill meets
those concerns. First, it requires TSA to develop a system so that 100
percent of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft is inspected by
2009. Second, it provides for an additional billion dollars to be made
available over the next four years to put modern baggage screening
systems in place. It also creates an innovative new $250 million trust
fund to address the risk of suicide bombers at the checkpoint by
strengthening explosive detection at the checkpoint. The Department
will also have to explain how it plans to undertake efforts to
prescreen passenger names against terrorist watch lists, a task the
airlines are still charged with doing over five years after 9/11. At
the same time, a new, streamlined system will be put in place for
innocent people to establish their identities and prevent them from
being misidentified against ``No Fly'' or ``Selectee'' lists.
One of the most frightening aspects of the terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 is that the planes all
took off from domestic airports, meaning that each of the hijackers was
already in the United States. In response to these disconcerting facts,
this bill strengthens accountability for plans to implement biometric
verification of foreign nationals entering and exiting the United
States, as well as improved integration of the Visa Security and
Terrorist Travel Programs. Moreover, this measure authorizes badly
needed support and personnel for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking
Center, in order to enhance its ability to combat human smuggling,
human trafficking, and terrorist travel.
In addition to addressing domestic homeland security gaps, this bill
also contains multiple provisions that deal with security concerns
outside the United States. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, we have become increasingly aware of the growing threat posed by
terrorists with access to nuclear materials and other weapons of mass
destruction. This bill takes up those concerns by providing some of the
building blocks needed to mitigate the international aspects of
terrorism. This bill complements existing laws and provides resources
to encourage international cooperation to stem proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. It also addresses the terrorism implications of
the nuclear black market, and mandates that U.S. foreign assistance and
arms sales be withdrawn from countries that condone or engage in
nuclear proliferation networks.
Another way that this bill protects against the threat posed by
weapons of mass destruction is to strengthen security procedures for
cargo entering the United States from foreign ports. Building upon the
recently enacted SAFE Ports Act, this bill requires all cargo
containers to be scanned before they reach U.S. ports within five
years, and requires port security personnel to use the best technology
available in scanning containers for radiation and density.
While it addresses a number of security concerns, this bill would
also strengthen protection of privacy rights and civil liberties.
Although it was created in 2004 on the recommendation of the 9/11
Commission, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has been
little more than a shell that has failed to live up to its promise and
protect the basic freedoms of Americans. This bill would take three key
steps toward making the Board a legitimate force of accountability and
transparency in the federal government. First, it would remove the
Board from the Executive Office of the President, making it an
independent and autonomous body. Second, this bill would require all
Board members to be confirmed by the Senate, which will minimize
political influence by the President and other executive officials
whose actions it oversees. Finally, this bill would empower the Board
as the Chief Privacy Officer with the authority to subpoena witnesses
and evidence, a key investigative tool that would greatly strengthen
the Board's ability to uncover questionable or unlawful action.
The best way to honor those who lost their lives because of the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 is to make sure that kind of
attack never happens again. Similarly, there must be a stronger
commitment to giving first responders and communities the resources
they need to respond quickly and vigorously to terrorist attacks and
significant natural disasters. The 9/11 Commission did an exemplary job
of locating weaknesses and making recommendations for strengthening
homeland security. Now it falls to us, the U.S. Congress, to follow
through on those recommendations. The 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Act of 2007 is a critical step in fulfilling that mission, and I urge
my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in supporting
it.