House Page Board Revision Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 66 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield my friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 30 minutes, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 66 is a closed rule that allows the House to consider the final piece of the first-100-hours agenda. This rule, as has been mentioned, provides 3 hours of debate in the House, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Science and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that we will hear a great deal from my friends on the other side of the aisle about process, and they will be upset that this is a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats campaigned on changing the culture in Washington. We campaigned on ending the culture of corruption and on draining the swamp, and we have done that. We campaigned most importantly, Mr. Speaker, on doing what is right for hardworking American families whose priorities and whose concerns have been ignored for the last 12 years.

Over the last 100 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House has voted to clean up the ethical mess in Congress, to strengthen homeland security, to combat the Federal deficit by instituting pay-as-you-go rules, to invest in lifesaving stem cell research, to make college more affordable by lowering the interest rates on student loans, to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by allowing the government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, and to increase the minimum wage for millions of hardworking and underpaid workers in America.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that each of these initiatives not only has passed the House of Representatives, but has enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

And in a difference in approach to legislation compared to the Republican majority in the past, who used to subscribe to the rule that they would only bring measures to the floor if a majority of the majority on their side supported it, I am happy to report that yesterday's vote on making college tuition more affordable for our young people not only enjoyed a majority of the majority in terms of support, but a majority of the minority actually voted in support, and that is refreshing.

Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to the American people that we would achieve these goals quickly, and that is what we have done. And in order to keep that promise to the voters, we have utilized an expedited process.

With the passage of this rule, the House will consider H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am proud to stand here in support of this initiative.

The voters sent us a message in November. They called us to account for bill after bill of kickbacks to special interests like Big Oil. We were not sent here to allow huge corporations to continue to reap the benefits of tax breaks while gouging their customers at the gas pump. I commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for holding true to their commitments and listening to the American people by bringing this legislation to the floor for a vote.

The distinguished chairmen of the Committees on Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel, and Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, crafted this legislation to balance fiscal responsibility with our Nation's growing energy needs.

At long last, Mr. Speaker, Congress is putting its money where its mouth is and increasing our investment in renewable energy. We are not just talking the talk; we are walking the walk. We promised no quick fixes. It took years of failed legislative policy to dig us into this hole. But the bill before us today will set us on the path toward energy independence.

For years, experts have warned of an impending energy crisis. They pointed to the Nation's increasing oil and gas consumption and called attention to our limited supply of these natural resources. Unfortunately, Congress and the Bush administration failed to heed these warnings. In fact, under the Republican-controlled Congress, Federal investment in alternative energy sources actually decreased over the past decade. And at the same time, the administration prescribed more of the same, giveaways to the oil and gas industries.

During the 109th Congress, President Bush heralded the Republican Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a necessary approach to the Nation's energy crisis. In all, it provided $8.1 billion, let me repeat that, $8.1 billion in tax incentives for the entire energy industry. And despite their record profits, oil and gas companies took 93 percent of these tax breaks, $7.5 billion.

Now, I suppose that that shouldn't be a surprise to many people here, given the fact that in the 2006 elections the oil companies gave $17.5 million to candidates running for Congress. $14.5 million of that money went to Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, all that money going to the oil industry did not leave very much money for alternative and renewable energy supplies. So, Mr. Speaker, when that energy bill was debated, many of us on this side of the aisle voiced concerns that the bill would do nothing to ease the price of gas at the pump or decrease our dependence on foreign oil or provide significant investment in renewable sources of energy.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, there is study after study after study, news article after news article after news article which support our concerns, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is a critical step in the right direction. It closes the tax loophole for oil companies which provided Conoco Phillips $106 million in 2005, even as that company enjoyed profits totaling $13.5 billion. It rolls back tax breaks for geological studies for oil exploration and repeals five royalty relief provisions from the 2005 energy bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I think most importantly, for a lot of us who believe that we need to do more to achieve energy independence, it reinvests those funds into clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Certainly, there are no easy solutions to remedy our energy crisis.

But we know one thing for certain, if we fail to pass this bill and make the necessary changes and investments now, our dependency on foreign oil will continue to worsen. The time to is now. For those who want the same old, same old, who are married to the status quo, vote the rule down. But for those who are tired of being dictated to by big oil companies, for those who believe that we should reinvest in renewable energy, for those who believe that citizens matter more than campaign contributions, vote ``yes'' on this rule.

Chairman Rahall said in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2 days ago that what we are considering today is just the first step. We have much more that we need to do. I look forward to working with him and other Members of this Congress and moving this country forward.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Rahall, for their work. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and supporting the supporting bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for voting with the Democratic majority in support of increasing the minimum wage and for voting with us to make it more affordable for students to go to college. We appreciate your support. Judging from his statement on this bill, I get the sense that he is opposed to the underlying bill.

Let me just say if you are opposed to the underlying bill, vote ``no'' for everything. If you are for the same old, same old, if you want more, if you support tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, if you are against investing more in renewable energy, vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I mean, that is the way this place works. That is your right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H.R. 475; the bill shall be considered as read; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, and one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

This is on the Page Board issue, and the explanation is here. My understanding is that your side has had a copy of this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time.

Fairness, openness, sunshine, transparency, bipartisanship, those are just some of the words that the new majority used to describe the way they were going to run the 110th Congress. But today, as we begin debate on the sixth bill of the Democrats' ``100 Hours for 6'' or 100 hours agenda, we have seen all too clearly, Mr. Speaker, the truth about those promises.

They have been, at best, hollow promises.

On Tuesday of this week, the Committee on Rules met to take testimony and report a rule on the legislation that has been brought to the floor today. Before any testimony was even taken, the distinguished chairwoman of the committee announced that the committee's majority would report out a closed rule.

After the chairwoman's declaration, there really was not any need for testimony or debate on any amendments. The Rules Committee had been closed for business. The majority had already made up its mind to block amendments despite any merits of all possible amendments that could be brought before the committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see how you can claim an open and transparent process when you block all amendments before they are even brought before the committee.

During consideration of the bills that comprised the Contract with America in 1995, we Republicans allowed consideration of 154 Democrat amendments; 48 Democrat amendments eventually passed the House and were included in the Contract with America bills that passed the House of Representatives.

But that is not what we see happening today, Mr. Speaker. Today as we consider the last of the new majority's 100 hour agenda, we have not had the chance to debate one amendment, not even one.

From either party, they have been consistent, they close out their Members as well. They promised openness, they promised transparency. Some openness, some transparency.

According to the majority leader's office, Mr. Speaker, we have over 65 hours left in the so-called 100 hours for 2006. The reality is that we have more than enough time, more than enough time to debate some thoughtful amendments. What does the majority plan to do with the rest of their 100 hours? Are we to expect more closed rules?

The 100 hours for 2006 campaign means that six people make all the decisions, apparently. I would imagine it is the Speaker, the majority leader, the whip, the caucus chairman and two others, six for '06 and six for '07 and six for '08, but then the American people get to speak again.

Now, Democrats claim that Congress already debated the bills last year, the bills that are being brought forth to the floor. While it is true that some provisions have come before the Congress in other legislation in previous Congresses, provisions that may be in legislation brought before us under these closed rules that shut out all the amendments, there are many aspects of the bills, including the bill today, that have never seen the light of day. Even more important is that our 54 new colleagues, they were not here for any of our previous debates. Four committees of jurisdiction have jurisdiction over the bill that the majority brings to the floor at this time, Ways and Means, Resources, Budget and Rules. Yet the majority did not allow any of those committees of jurisdiction to hold any hearings or debate the bill.

I am honored to serve as the ranking member on the Rules Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, which has jurisdiction over parts of this underlying consideration. The subcommittee has never held a hearing on the bill. The majority decided it was better if the bill never saw the light of day in any committee process.

I think it is important to recall why we have committees, why we have a committee process. The committee process allows Members to understand the merits and implications of bills and to vet, refine and amend legislation. Completely shutting out committees of jurisdiction is certainly not healthy for the democratic process.

This year we have already seen what happens when you bypass the committee process and blindly bring legislation to the floor. We get outcomes, such as the one in the minimum wage bill that ends up exempting companies from paying the minimum wage in American Samoa. If it had gone through the committee process, at least we would have known about that aspect of the bill. If we had held hearings on the underlying bill before us today, we would learn some of the consequences of this bill.

For example, some bill would cut back on incentives for domestic production of oil and gas. Those incentives are aimed, and the existing incentives, are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of those incentives will drive up the cost, obviously, for those who search for oil and gas and thus increase our dependence on foreign suppliers, such as Venezuela and Nigeria. Those countries, I would maintain, are not reliable sources. In the case of Venezuela, its government is clearly anti-American. Do we really want to rely on those countries? Apparently the majority today is saying yes.

Republicans are committed to increasing clean energy supplies and increasing our domestic energy sources. Since 2001, we have seen the investment of nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable domestic energy sources. This includes the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.

You know, we hear my friend from Massachusetts talking about the fact that some tax breaks or unfair tax breaks were given to the oil and gas companies. It is interesting, because I was seeing a report from the Congressional Research Service that talks about despite the fact that there has been a lot of talk and there continues to be a lot of talk over the tax breaks given to big oil in the energy bill that we passed in 2005, in reality, that energy bill substantially raised taxes on the oil and gas industry $300 million. There was a $300 million tax increase, according to the Congressional Research Service, while at the same time, giving more than almost $9 billion in tax incentives for alternative clean and renewable energy resources.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we should not be considering closed rule after closed rule after closed rule and systematically bypassing the committee process. This constant bypass operation that our friends on the other side of the aisle have become enamored to, the constant bypass operation, it really constitutes an affront, I would say, to the democratic spirit as well as, obviously, to the promises that were repeated and repeated by our friends on the other side of the aisle before they arrived and constituted and instituted the continuous, constant bypass operation, bypass the committees, bypass the Members, bypass the possibility of amendments, and go straight to the floor with legislation that no one has seen. That is not healthy. That is not healthy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Reserving my right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I may not object, but I don't have a copy of what the gentleman, my friend, was talking about. If the gentleman would explain the motion, because I was not shown a copy before.

I have received it now. I certainly see no reason to object, and I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending my colleague on the page board, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for his service to the program, long service to the program, and for the bipartisan manner in which he has handled the legislation before him today.

I would also like to thank the Chair and ranking member of the House Administration Committee, and I would like to join my fellow, the ranking member and all of us, really, to say thank you to all the pages who are in the room today, all the pages who are currently serving, and all those pages who have done wonderful service in the past.

I am proud to be the original cosponsor of the House Page Board Revision Act and rise to urge my colleagues to support it. I believe my colleagues will support it.

The House page program has existed for well over a century and provides teenagers with an incredible opportunity to learn about the legislative process, gain leadership and teamwork skills that can be applied to whatever profession they decide to enter. House pages provide a valuable service to the House of Representatives as well. The page program is truly an asset, both to this body and to the Nation.

I guarantee, if you ask any page in this room, present or former, about their experience, there is one word that they always use to describe it when I ask, and that is ``fantastic.'' That is why Members of this House were shocked to learn that a former Congressman's inappropriate interaction with House pages came to light last fall.

As a mother, it was very upsetting to find out that children sent to Washington could possibly be preyed upon. As a Member of this House and a member of the page board, I was disappointed that the information regarding those e-mails was not shared with the full page board.

But since it is impossible to go back and fix, it is important that the House move forward to make the changes to prevent such an incident or other incidents that could endanger the safety of young people. Certainly, we all know that one of the most important rules of this House is for Members, of course, to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects credibility of the House.

But it is imperative that we learn lessons from last year's situation and take the steps necessary to better protect House pages and to ensure that any potential problem is investigated fully.

Mr. Speaker, many of the items in this bill are suggestions that I made to the page board in October, and I will include this letter into the Record listing my reasons for supporting this.

This legislation balances the partisan make-up of the page board by incorporating two pages from each party. I believe this provision is important, not just symbolically but it is also important because it demonstrates that nothing within the page board is ever construed as partisan.

It is important that everyone involved, House Members, staff, employees, pages, dorm supervisors alike feel comfortable approaching the page board with any information about possible threats to the safety of the children in this program. Demonstrating that the board is truly bipartisan should make this easier.

Expanding membership to include a former page and the parent of a current or recent page will improve discussions on policies for the page program and provide that additional perspective, that additional set of eyes and ears for any problems that may arise.

Certainly, regular meetings, I heartily agree, of the page board, will help shed light on any trouble facing our pages, and I am pleased that this provision has been included in the bill.

My hope is that other recommendations that have been put forward, such as a peer counseling program, better communications, will strengthen this program as we move forward into the future.

I commend the leaders of both parties for agreeing to take action to better protect the pages who serve this House; and, again, I thank Mr. Kildee for offering this bill. This is a good bipartisan piece of legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

October 5, 2006.

Hon. John Shimkus,

Hon. Dale Kildee,

Mr. Bill Livingood, Sergeant-at-Arms.

Dear Page Board Member: This week has been difficult for

all Members of Congress, as well as for the institution in

which we serve. Make no mistake, the revelation of Mark

Foley's despicable actions have been difficult on the young

people in our Page Program as well. I am confident that I

speak for the entire Page Board in expressing outrage and

hoping that anyone involved in this tragic sequence of events

be severely punished.

Today, Speaker Hastert called for the Page Program to be

reviewed and strengthened. As the Speaker correctly stated,

times have changed since this great program was created, and

I believe it is incumbent upon us to ensure we address these

changes as they pertain to the Page Program.

As a fellow member of the Page Board, I write to you today

for two reasons: (1) To offer my full support for the

continuation of the Page Program, and (2) Offer my

suggestions on how we can begin to update and strengthen this

program to ensure it continues to offer a safe learning

experience for our nation's young people.

As we move forward, I ask that we consider using the

following items as a starting point for reform to the Page

Program:

(1) Increase the number of Members of Congress on the Page

Board and, like the Committee on Standards & Official

Conduct, establish equal representation from both parties on

the Page Board. I know we all agree that the issue of safety

for the young people in the Page Program is not a partisan

one.

(2) Developing a peer counseling program within the Page

Program. Modeled after peer programs that have been

successful in our educational system, this would provide

pages with an additional outlet to express any problems or

concerns that may be easier than reporting to an adult.

(3) The implementation of monthly meetings with the Page

Board, pages, as well as a representative from the U.S.

Capitol Police. We should create a system in which all

members of the Page Board have more information on any

potential problem facing the pages, including receiving

reports from the Capitol Police on any possible problems with

crime activity on Capitol Hill or in the page dorm

neighborhood.

(4) Establish training and guidelines on educating Members

of Congress and pages on the job description and

responsibilities of those in the Page Program as well as

proper relationships with pages, Members of Congress, or any

employee of the House of the Representatives.

I look forward to working with you to achieve our shared

goal of improving this great program, and more importantly,

ensuring we have put in place the best procedures to protect

the safety and welfare of the young people in the Page

Program.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of January 18, 2007, I call up the bill (H.R. 475) to revise the composition of the House of Representatives Page Board to equalize the number of members representing the majority and minority parties and to include a member representing the parents of pages and a member representing former pages, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, as chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration, I am delighted to call up this important bill to reform the governance of the House Page Program.

I trust that all Members recall the circumstances that led to this bill coming up during the first days of this new Congress, so that there is little need to deal with them here. Suffice it to say that the events of last September have been abundantly clear that the House Page Board can no longer be constituted as it was during the last Congress with two Members of the majority but only one from the minority. Such a ratio potentially raises the specter of partisanship and political considerations where they have no place.

Mr. Speaker, the House Page Board has the statutory responsibility to govern and oversee the Page Program. The Board must not only be free of partisanship, it must function so all of its members have access to the information necessary to discharge their responsibilities and do what is right for the pages. These delightful pages, whose parents send them here, trusting that they will be safe, become the responsibility of this House.

If structural changes are needed to ensure that members of the page board can properly oversee the programs, free of extraneous concerns, then we must make such changes.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has written an excellent bill that changes the page board's form and function. First, it enlarges the page board to include a second Member of the House appointed by the minority leader, thus equalizing the number of Members between the two parties. I must say the Speaker of this House is using her nonpartisan efforts to try to bring equity to this board. This alone could strengthen the board dramatically by making the minority full partners on the board.

But the bill goes further. It adds two outside members of the board, one to represent parents of current or recent pages, and another one who represents a former page to represent the pages themselves. These two outside board members must be appointed jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader for a 1-year term, but can be eligible for reappointment if they continue to meet the requisite qualifications. These additional representatives for pages and parents will infuse the board's deliberations with perspectives that only they can bring.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the page board gives the program the attention it deserves, the bill requires regular board meetings on a schedule established jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader. This bill, which would be permanent and effective immediately, authorizes reimbursement of the outside board members for the expenses of attending meetings. I am confident that Members agree that the benefits of a parent and a former page representation will be worth the modest cost.

I commend the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from West Virginia for introducing this excellent bill, and I commend the Speaker for scheduling this the first days of this landmark 110th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to one of the authors of this important bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a former page.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration for his stewardship and his leadership in the Page Program. I would like to thank all of those who were responsible for this great legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this House must pass this bill. The Page Program is a treasured institution that offers youngsters from across this country the opportunity to serve and to learn firsthand about the Congress, while helping us to conduct the Nation's business.

As I said this morning to the pages when I was coming in, this is your bill. Of all the bills you have heard throughout the years you have been here, this one is yours, and we are happy to introduce this bill today.

Recent unfortunate events have shown that the governance of the Page Program needs reform. The House minority must be brought into the process as full partners with equal representation, eliminating any hint of partisanship. This is why I applaud the Speaker of this House. She wants to make sure, as much as we can, to have nonpartisanship in conducting the business of the People's House.

This board will benefit from new representation of parents and former pages themselves, and that is an added incentive, Mr. Speaker, because when you have parents and when you have former pages, they can have input that will benefit these pages who are here with us.

These and other reforms proposed by the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from West Virginia, who have served diligently on the Page Board, will greatly improve the program. I think also the increase in meetings will be an additive as well, Mr. Speaker.

So I am proud for all of those who have been part and parcel of this legislation, as well as I am proud of our new Speaker, who has made these reforms part of the agenda for the first days of the new Congress.

I urge all Members now to support this legislation and to protect these young folks who come from all areas of this country, coming here to do a part and to serve us as we do the people's business.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 475. I will not go into any detailed explanation of it because the Chair of the committee has already given that.

But before I begin my remarks on the legislation before us, I want to express my gratitude to all the dedicated young people who come to serve the House as pages. We are blessed to have such a talented group of young people who are willing to leave home and come here to work for us and for the people of this Nation.

I still recall the first page that I appointed during my first term in the Congress. She was a wonderful young woman, and she served here well. She then went on to college, then to medical school, and is now in residency and has established an outstanding record. Both here in the Congress as a wonderful page and academically, she has done very well. I am certain she will be a wonderful doctor as well. This is typical of the types of people that we have in this Congress as pages.

This legislation is certainly no reflection on any problems that they have created, but rather a reflection on problems that Members have created. We believe that pages who serve here should feel nothing but pride for the important role they play in the daily operations of this House and in the legislation that we present. The legislation before us is meant to improve the way that we as adults conduct our oversight of the page program.

Sadly, the sordid revelations of last fall were not the first time the House had demonstrated a failure to protect the young people who come here to serve in the program.

In July 1982, following allegations of sexual misconduct involving Members of both parties and their involvement with pages, the Democratic Speaker and the Republican leader of the House appointed a Speaker's commission on pages to study the page program, its usefulness, and to determine what changes needed to be made to better protect America's youth during their

service to the House of Representatives.

Many of the commission's recommendations were adopted by the House, including the creation of a leadership-appointed page board responsible for overseeing the page program. That was certainly a step forward, and today's legislation restructures the board that was created then. It has not been the fault of the pages that we had the incident this past year. It is not even the fault of the page board; but, in fact, rather, it was the fault of not engaging the full page board to deal with the problem that made the problem even worse.

This legislation before us will improve the board, make it more effective, and enable it to better carry out its important responsibilities. The pages who work here provide tremendous service to Members, staff, and the operations of the House of Representatives. They gain an invaluable experience, a superb education and improved insight into the workings of their own government.

We owe it to them to ensure that we are doing everything possible and to ensure that they are able to have a positive, healthy, and beneficial experience. We must ensure that we are taking good care of and protecting the young people who have been entrusted to us.

The legislation that is before us will help us meet our important obligations. I believe that adding an additional member and making it truly bipartisan with no party dominating will be a truly positive change.

I believe that adding a former page to the board will be a positive change. In the past at times we have had Members serving on the board who were serving as pages. They performed that function. But by specifically naming a former page to the board, we can ensure that their input is heard.

Furthermore, having a parent of a former page or, perhaps, even a current page serve on the board will be an asset to us as we consider the operation of the page program, their education and all the regulations pertaining to them.

I hope this legislation will help us meet our important obligation in this regard, and I ask all the Members of Congress to support this excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize a current member of the page board, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just make a few closing comments.

Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted with this piece of legislation. I congratulate Mr. Kildee, my esteemed colleague from the State of Michigan, and also Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito, who spoke earlier. It is a good piece of legislation. It is, unfortunately, needed. But it should have been in place before. It might have helped to prevent some of the events we had this past year.

So I strongly support this legislation. I urge all of our colleagues to vote for it. May we all have a better Page Board and a better Page Program and continue one of the most outstanding programs that a young person in this Nation can participate in.

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