Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization bill on behalf of myself and the following members who are immediate cosponsors of the Select Committee on Intelligence: The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). I would also like to thank the chairman of the committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for his previously stated support for this amendment.

Further, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the efforts of former member Louis Stokes and now departed and former member Julian Dixon; our present minority leader of the Democratic Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), and I had forgotten about Tim Roemer, who also was very instrumental in this particular arena as a former member, and others on both sides of the aisle that have been interested in this issue.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs the Director of Central Intelligence to establish a pilot program to improve the recruitment, hiring, and retention of ethnic and cultural minorities throughout the Intelligence Community.

Leaders in the Intelligence Community have, for a number of years, expressed the view that diversity within their population can pay dividends with respect to cultural understanding and especially language capabilities. And, for an equal number of years, the Select Committee on Intelligence has urged them to improve their efforts of hiring, promoting, and retaining individuals from diverse backgrounds.

While we noted in our report to accompany H.R. 2417 that progress has been made and, indeed, it has been, especially in the more recent years just passed, we also noted a lack of progress with respect to hiring, promotion, and retention of women and minorities under the current plan. The Secretary of Defense has stated that, ``The current personnel system is not flexible enough to confront the dangers of the 21st century.''

The amendment we offer today addresses one of the many concerns raised by the Secretary and proposes a potential solution. It directs the DCI to develop a pilot program to achieve the goals for increased diversity amongst the Intelligence Community staff.

This amendment requires that the Director use methods such as advertising in foreign language newspapers or conducting site visits to high schools, and I would even encourage middle schools as we look toward the future, because it is interesting that in those areas I feel we find many of our grandchildren and little children know a lot about computers that a lot of us older hands do not know about; and colleges as well, with a high percentage of students from diverse backgrounds as two or more recruitment methods. It also requires an annual report from the Director to assess the effectiveness of this project in meeting his goals.

If the horrors of 9/11 taught us anything, it is that the biggest threat to our democratic ideals and cultural beliefs comes from those who do not share our ideals and beliefs.

The war on terrorism has focused even greater attention on the Intelligence Community as they have collectively faced these and many other challenges with commendable determination. It will take time, innovation, and a long-term strategy to ensure that the Intelligence Community remains capable of both understanding and responding to the threats of the 21st century.

I believe that this amendment will help the Intelligence Community meet the goals they have set for themselves and challenges in the decades to come. I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, which commemorates and honors the lives of Medgar Evers and Myrlie Evers-Williams. These two outstanding Americans dedicated their lives to the struggle for civil rights, and Medgar Evers paid the ultimate price with his life. What makes Medgar and Myrlie even more remarkable is that they sought to change the situation, instead of letting the situation overcome them, they tried to overcome it.

The struggles that Medgar and Myrlie witnessed and endured as they attempted to integrate African-Americans into larger society are struggles that all minorities can identify and empathize with. As someone that has experienced racism, I empathize with Medgar and Myrlie's struggle, as do many Americans black, white and all colors in between.

Against extraordinary odds, they both received post-secondary educations in a racial climate that was filled with tension, and challenged a system that said that blacks were not good enough, not equal but, actually inferior to their white counterparts.

Medgar Evers, with his wife by his side, led the charge for civil rights in Mississippi for African-Americans. After the United States Supreme Court determined that segregation was unconstitutional, Medgar was the first African-American to apply to the University of Mississippi Law School but he was denied.

This denial did not deter Medgar and Myrlie from their pursuit of justice and equality. In 1954, Medgar accepted a position with the NAACP as their Mississippi Field Secretary and made Myrlie his secretary.

Together they aggressively attacked the racist societal barriers that continued to oppress African-Americans. They worked tirelessly to empower African-Americans by registering them to vote. They also organized rallies, built the NAACP's membership, and traveled around the country to educate the public, despite numerous threats.

Even though it's the 21st century, we have an obligation to remember and acknowledge the people who dedicated themselves to the fight for civil rights in our past. We owe them a debt of gratitude and a commitment to continue their efforts.

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying conference report for the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. My colleagues know that the rules for conference reports in the House are typically closed, and today's rule is reflective of the longstanding tradition in the House to bring conference reports to the floor in a similar fashion.

Mr. Speaker, every time a child is abused or neglected, the whole human race suffers. With that sobering thought in mind, I support the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. I support this conference report, because most States are facing severe budget deficits, and this is the only Federal legislation that targets child abuse and neglect. I support this conference report because States are dependent on Federal money to meet the increasing demand for community child abuse prevention programs. But realize this legislation does not begin to solve the overwhelming financial problems that the States are currently experiencing. In fact, critics of this bill including the director of the National Child Abuse Coalition say that there is a $2.5 billion spending gap between the amount currently allocated towards prevention and protection and the amount required to handle this problem effectively.

The statistics on child abuse and neglect in this country are heart- wrenching. The Department of Health and Human Services estimated that in 2001, 903,000 children in this country were victims of abuse or neglect. This figure represents an 11 percent increase from the previous year, and many child advocates say the stress of a bad economy and unemployment could be two reasons for the increase.

This bill includes funding for training and preventative programs for social workers and families and encourages partnerships between State child protective services and community organizations. It also requires foster parents and adoptive parents to undergo criminal background checks and mandates that States expand child abuse services to children born with drug-related problems.

Child abuse and neglect is everyone's problem and it affects us both morally and financially. The cost of training and preventative programs will be offset later when children who might have been burdens on society grow into upstanding citizens. From a financial perspective, the costs of child abuse and neglect to our society as a whole are staggering. Studies have documented the link between abuse and neglect in childhood with medical, emotional, psychological and behavioral disorders in adulthood. Those who are abused as children are more likely to suffer from depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse.

The abused are also more likely to become juvenile delinquents and are 29 percent more likely to become criminals. Using that estimate, 36,000 of the children who were victims of abuse or neglect in 2001 can or may become criminals.

I certainly hope that the work we are doing in this conference report will help curb this number and help those who need it. However, if we are going to come to the floor today and talk about child abuse and neglect, we will be remiss to not talk about the child neglect that occurred last week in this very Chamber when Republicans in this body refused to extend the child tax credit to more than 12 million children living in low-income families without attaching a significant cost to the bill that would have provided for those 12 million children.

Frankly, it baffles me how the rhetoric of Republicans in this body rarely meet the reality of their policies. The All-American Tax Relief Act, which passed this House last week was filled with tax cuts that benefit the more well off in our society more than six times as much as they do the needy. The bill was another tax cut to the wealthy that further drives our country into debt and deficit spending, and it lacked even the slightest bit of fiscal responsibility. In truth, the child tax credit failed to provide relief to more than 12 million children who are growing up in low-income families. In truth, families making between $10,500 and $26,625 were excluded from this tax relief, including 1 million children of U.S. Armed Forces personnel. Perhaps when Republicans talk about all Americans, they are really talking about all Americans in the upper tax brackets.

Mr. Speaker, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson noted, ``A Nation as compassionate as ours should ensure that no child is a victim of abuse or neglect. The number of children that are being abused and neglected in this country is an unacceptable daily tragedy.'' Indeed, Secretary Thompson is correct.

But while this body helps communities fight child abuse and neglect throughout the country, we ought to first fight it right here in the House of Representatives. That we do not, Mr. Speaker, is an unacceptable daily tragedy.

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

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

Before I yield to the gentlewoman from California, I would like to respond to my good friend and colleague by indicating that the President's remarks were to pass the Senate bill, and what we did last week was force a conference which is going to delay the tax cuts for the 12 million persons about whom I spoke earlier.

That is a reality, and, to my way of thinking, that is, in some respects, uncaring. It certainly is not compassionate. Everybody that is wealthy, including those of us here in Congress, will get our tax benefits, but many of the persons about whom I speak, including some in the military, will not receive a dime this year by virtue of the actions that we took last week.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been a leader in the fight for protecting children.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I will just respond to my friend from Pennsylvania, who is an extremely thoughtful Member of this body, when he cites the fact that Democrats want to spend. Let me isolate that on the child tax credit: Democrats did want to spend the $3.5 billion that the United States Senate wanted to spend, and each nickel of it was offset. Toward that end, I would urge that that kind of spending redounds to all of our benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taking care of children, I just wonder, and pardon me for asking, what $1.1 trillion in the original tax cut during the President's administration and the $350 billion that we passed recently, in addition to the tack-on to the child tax credit, they ran it up to $82 billion, I wonder what those funds could possibly have done for the children of America? I, for one, would have preferred to spend it on them, rather than on rich people.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a continuing fighter and champion for children.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), my good friend who has been a continuing champion for children in this body and in his previous life before coming here.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the close of this matter, I will urge that Members pay attention to a request on the previous question, and I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule, and my amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes the conference report, it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. My amendment will also add to H.R. 1307 the text of H.R. 1308, as passed by the Senate, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the Republican tax bill passed last month.

This will allow the House to combine these two Senate-passed bills and immediately send them back to the Senate and then, hopefully, on to the President's desk for his signature. If this happens, we can begin helping America's lower- and modest-income families right away, and we can give tax relief to those members of the military who are bravely fighting for this Nation as we speak.

Is it not about time we started giving tax breaks to those Americans who really need it? And is it not about time we put an end to legislation that has no chance of becoming law?

Last week, the President said he would sign H.R. 1308, as it was passed by the Senate, and restore the refundable tax credit to those families making between $10,000 and $26,000. H.R. 1308, as amended by the Senate, will provide immediate tax relief to America's hard- working, but struggling, families by extending the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income working families and nearly 12 million additional children. This measure will provide help to the families of 8 million children whose parents serve in the military or are veterans. It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan by extending the child tax credit to many of them.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1307 will also help our brave men and women serving in the military. It will help with travel costs for those called up for the National Guard and Reserves, and it will provide benefits for the families of the Columbia astronauts.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can combine and then consider these two important tax relief bills as they passed in the Senate and rush them back to the Senate. Let us not let tax relief for these two important and deserving segments of our society wither on the vine.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can consider tax relief that can actually become law and really help those most in need of tax relief.

I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not prevent the House from considering the conference report for this very important legislation, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. It will allow us to consider the Senate-passed versions of the refundable child tax credit and the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, in addition to this important conference.

However, a yes vote will stop us from voting on this package of true tax relief for lower income Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote no on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution, which calls on

the government of Iran to comply with its NPT obligations, sign the AIEA Model Additional Protocol, and halt support for terrorism. Also, it asks President Bush and the international community to renew their commitment to the war against terrorism, and impede the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world poses a serious threat to international peace and security. The knowledge, non- nuclear materials, and components needed for the production of nuclear weapons are already accessible worldwide. The main technical barrier is obtaining the nuclear material. Therefore, to prevent any further proliferation of nuclear weapons, we must work to prevent the propagation of nuclear materials.

The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (AIEA) has recently announced that Iran has built a plant to enrich uranium--a key component of advanced nuclear weapons. This deeply worries me, because U.S. intelligence sources indicate that Iran could develop as many as 50 nuclear weapons from this facility.

Mr. Speaker, members of this chamber have not yet given adequate attention to the dangers of a nuclear Iran.

Iran's nuclear intentions are a cause of fear. It is unclear whether Iran, by pursuing a sophisticated and advanced nuclear program, has chosen to break from the NPT treaty now; but it is obvious that it has positioned itself to do so within a very short time if it ever decides to.

Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism, and continues to provide material support to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad--all recognized terrorist groups. The country's construction of nuclear facilities coupled with its known ties to terrorist groups constitutes a threat to global peace and security.

Nuclear materials that could be used to develop nuclear weapons must not fall into the hands of terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism-- like Iran. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capabilities must remain a foreign policy and homeland security priority.

There are many difficulties, but also opportunities, on the road towards nuclear non-proliferation. For the last few decades a number of diplomatic and political strategies have been pursued. Let me empathetically opine that we need to redouble these efforts. If we are to achieve a non-nuclear Iran, we must commit to a thoughtful strategy of dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1308, the ``Only If you Make Enough Money'' All American Tax Relief Act of 2003.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes, ``I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general government in every possible shape.'' Perhaps Hamilton had the current Republican Caucus in mind when he issued this warning more than 225 years ago. Clearly, the bill that this body is considering today is an example of power, ignorance, and plain and simple greed.

When the President signed into law the most recent tax cut, he signed a flawed bill. It was flawed when it first passed the House and it was flawed when the Conference Report was approved. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised. As in so many other instances, during the still of the night--when the majority of Americans had already gone to bed-- House Republicans cut a deal with Senate Republicans and rushed to complete a tax cut requested by an over zealous President.

As America has had a chance to sift through the most recent tax cut, it has become clear that the Republican Majority passed a bill which neglects more than 12 million children who are growing up in low-income families and the ability for their parents to benefit from the expansion of the child tax credit. Even worse, when provided with an opportunity to fix what is wrong with the initial bill--in a non- controversial manner and at a relatively inexpensive cost--the Republican Majority has proven that it is more interested in scoring political points with the rich at the expense of America's children.

Now, I'd like to give the Majority the benefit of the doubt and believe that the exclusion of families making between $10,500 and $26,625 was a simple oversight. However, after examining the bill that the House is considering today, as well as the reluctance at which the Majority is bringing it to the floor, it is increasingly clear that the ``oversight'' Republicans made in the most recent tax bill was anything but an oversight. Instead, it was a concerted effort to avoid extending the credit to all families, rich and poor, to save offset room for an international business tax bill that the Majority Leader and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee have each indicated is a priority.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can think of no greater priority than helping America's children and neediest families. This bill does little of the sort.

The Majority may try and sell this bill to the American public as one that helps those who need it most, but the truth remains that the bill is filled with tax cuts that benefit the wealthy more than six times as much as they do the needy. This is a tax cut that further drives our country into debt and deficit spending, and it lacks even the slightest bit of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I've often been referred to as a ``tax and spend liberal.'' Well, I'm liberal and I'm proud of it. Frankly, I don't mind spending our tax dollars on government programs that, one, help people, and two, can be paid for through honest fiscal policy and, to the extent possible, balanced budgets. On the contrary, perhaps it might be best to describe the Majority as a bunch of ``cut and charge conservatives.'' The key difference between them and us is that Democrats pay up front for the government programs we support, whereas Republicans pay for their priorities on credit cards and leave the debt for future Democratic Majorities to pay off. This bill further runs up America's charge account for generations to come.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and join America's children and call on the Republican Majority to bring the Senate passed child tax credit bill to the floor for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, which designates a post office in Paia, Maui County, Hawaii as the Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building. Patsy Mink served in the House of Representatives from 1964 to 1977 and again from 1990 to 2002. The world lost one of its greatest citizens, and I lost a good friend when she passed away on September 28, 2002.

One of her greatest legislative accomplishments, she felt, was the passage of Title IX, which led to expanded opportunities for women and girls in athletics and academics. In the last decade of her political leadership, she was a tireless advocate on behalf of poor families, working to promote policies that addressed the realities of poverty. During the 107th Congress, she garnered substantial support for legislation to provide additional educational opportunities for the nation's welfare recipients. Patsy Mink also helped write environmental protection laws safeguarding land and water in communities affected by coal strip mining.

It is certainly fitting that we acknowledge this outstanding woman's accomplishments by naming a post office in her honor, and I thank Representative Ed Case for his stewardship of this bill. Patsy Mink's life of public service spanned six decades, beginning in 1956 when she was elected to the Territorial House in Hawaii. In 1964 she was elected to the House of Representatives and was one of the early opponents of the Vietnam War. President Jimmy Carter appointed her as assistant secretary of state for oceans, international, environmental and scientific affairs from 1977 to 1978, and she served as the national president for Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) from 1978 to 1981. Following her tenure as ADA president, she returned to politics, serving on the Honolulu City Council, and in a 1990 special election, she regained her Congressional seat.

Patsy Mink was an exemplary role model for women and minorities, and it is a pleasure and an honor to pay homage to a cherished colleague, who is no longer here, but certainly not forgotten.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act has the potential to eradicate illegal Internet gambling by disallowing merchants from accepting credit card, debit card, or other bank- sanctioned transactions as payment for online wagering.

Mr. Speaker, because online gambling has grave societal consequences, I support this legislation that aims to eradicate it. As the ``crack cocaine'' of gambling, Internet betting often leads to severe personal and family hardships, including debt, bankruptcy, foreclosed mortgages, and divorce.

Although I am pleased that three amendments were made in order, I find it especially disappointing and frustrating that the Pombo amendment will not be debated today.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) presented an amendment that would have treated Indian tribes on a par with State governments. The interests of the Native American people, a community that has been disenfranchised for all of their history, should always be heard and, in this case, should have been debated.

The price of Internet gambling can be measured best in terms of the human costs. As we debate the pros and cons of this act, the most important question we should be asking is, What does Internet gambling cost our children, and is this a price we are willing to pay?

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill that has the potential to stop the gambling with our future, because Internet gambling hurts children. I have learned of one young man that racked up debts of $70,000 and was kicked out of his house because he was stealing from his family, and of another teen who blew his tuition and 3 days after his father repaid it, he withdrew from his courses, demanded a refund, and spent the refund on gambling. Stories like these are innumerable.

The American Psychiatric Association is so concerned about the increase in youth gambling, primarily on the Internet, that it recently issued the following statement: ``In virtually all studies of the rates of gambling problems at various ages, high school and college-aged individuals show the highest problem areas.''

The APA says the increase in problems among young people can be attributed, in part, to the ease with which they can gamble on the Internet, where there are no enforceable restrictions on age.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to help reduce the extent of existing illegal Internet gambling in the United States; and I support it as it is presently constituted, with hopes of continuing revision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), a new Member, new in the sense that this is his first term; however, he has distinguished himself in many ways among freshmen and all of us.

Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker inform us of how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my classmate and good friend, former Secretary of State of the State of Ohio.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule; and my amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes this rule, it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill.

Let me make very clear to my colleagues in the House that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 2143 and on the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1308 as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from voting on this badly needed tax package to provide real relief to America's working families.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can send this bill to the President today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise today in support of H. Res. 201, which commends American business for its support of U.S. Reservists and National Guardsmen called to active duty.

Nationwide, Reservists are averaging far more number of days either deployed or away from home than at the height of the Gulf War in 1991. They are being called up more often, are serving for longer periods of time, and are absolutely vital to our national military strategy. The U.S. military does not undertake any sustained operations anywhere in the world without using the National Guard and Reserve.

Over 216,900 reservists have been called to active duty since 9/11, with most having to temporarily leave their civilian jobs to serve. Although their jobs are assured when they return, for their employers, war means having to continue business without key employees. Small firms in particular must make extraordinary sacrifices when they lose one of their most productive workers. Yet, despite these hardships, many companies continue to support these employees and their families while they serve their nation. H. Res. 201 expresses the sense of the House that our nation's businesses and business owners should be commended for their support of our troops and their families as they serve our country.

It is important to acknowledge the sacrifices and contributions made by American business in support of the Reservists and Guardsmen they employ. Many of these companies, without legal obligation to do so, continue to pay reservists the difference between their military pay and what they earn on their civilian jobs. Many also continue to pay health and insurance benefits for those employees and their families.

Members of the guard and reserve can't do their job without the support of their family and employers. It is fitting that we take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution that American business, both corporate and family-owned, is making to the defense of our nation and to our national military objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 177. This resolution acknowledges the accomplishments of the U.S. armed forces and expresses the deep gratitude of the nation to the 21 steadfast allies and coalition members in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also commends Defense Department civilians and contractors for their work and support.

It is a privilege to take a few minutes to pay tribute to the men and women who distinguish themselves daily in selfless service to this nation. More than 1.4 million men and women make up America's active and reserve forces, and over 300,000 of them are deployed for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition to their duties as soldiers, members of the armed forces also serve as our nation's unofficial ambassadors.-They represent the very best of what this nation stands for--honor, loyalty, and a commitment to enhancing freedom and democracy throughout the world. The men and women now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have the unique opportunity to demonstrate to the world that the United States cannot only win wars, it can help emerging nations become self-governing as well. Maintaining the peace and nation building in these two countries promises to be a lengthy and time-consuming process. I am pleased to offer my support to this resolution and call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reaffirm our commitment to our nation's goals in these two countries.

H. Con. Res. 177 also conveys the deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of service members killed or wounded during these operations, and calls on communities across the country to prepare appropriate ceremonies to commemorate with tributes and days of remembrance their service and sacrifice.

Sixty-seven United States military and civilians lost their lives in Afghanistan and 140 died in Iraq so far. By any measure, their contributions, in terms of human sacrifice, are immense. As a nation we share the sense of loss that their families are experiencing. We must never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy are founded on the ultimate sacrifices made by those who have lost their lives in war throughout our nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.

As of February 2003, there were 37,000 non-citizens serving on active duty in the U.S armed forces. Moreover, almost 12,000 foreign nationals were serving in the selected reserves, and another 8,000 were serving in the inactive National Guard and ready reserves.

Their red, white, and blue patriotism has contributed extraordinarily to national security. Every single one of these heroes, courageous defenders of lady liberty--from the Philippines, Mexico, Jamaica, Haiti, among many other source countries--deserves an expedited procedure for citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, as of February 2003, there were 1,663 non-citizen members of the U.S. military whose unit was stationed in Florida. Every single one of them has made the commitment to risk his or her life to defend the United States of America.

Volunteering to serve in the U.S. armed forces exemplifies one of the important roles of a citizen. On April 14, 2003, Captain Armando Ariel Gonzalez, a Florida non-citizen resident, was killed in a non-hostile accident when a commercial refueler collapsed at a supply area in Southern Iraq.

Once more, I wish to express my deepest condolences to the Gonzalez family, and at the same time offer all my support and prayers. This tragedy only crystallizes the great risk and danger the brave members of the all-volunteer military experience in the name of the people of the United States.

We must never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy are founded on the ultimate sacrifice made by all those who have lost their lives in war throughout our nation's history.

We have witnessed the commitment of non-citizen soldiers to the United States during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have earned our gratitude and admiration. We must now accord them our appreciation and respect.

I support The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 because it,

(a) Ensures the ability of lawful permanent resident spouses, unmarried children, and parents of soldiers killed as a result of service in the U.S military to apply for citizenship;

(b) Speeds up the naturalization process by allowing military members to naturalize after serving one year in the military, waive naturalization fees, and allow naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies to take place abroad, and

(c) Waives posthumous citizenship fees.

I am pleased with the bill proposed today, but urge my colleagues to further facilitate the naturalization process to these heroes and their loved ones.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me time.

I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 4. I firmly believe that passing this constitutional amendment would abandon the very values and principles upon which the country was founded. Make no mistake, I deplore the desecration of the flag, and I am absolutely certain that 440 Members of the House of Representatives deplore the desecration of the flag.

Those who burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag tread on a symbol cherished by nearly every one of our citizens in this great country. While I am appalled at the notion of someone desecrating our flag, I am more concerned with tampering with the Constitution. The true test of any nation's commitment to freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect unpopular expression.

In 1929, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that it was the most impressive principle of our Constitution that it protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought we hate.

The passage of this amendment would provide a dangerous precedent for future attempts to amend the Constitution, putting the essential freedoms it upholds at risk. If Congress amends the first amendment, something that has never happened in our Nation's history, it will open the door for other exceptions to liberty. Ultimately, we must remember that it is not simply the flag we honor but rather the principles it embodies. To restrict people's means of expression would do nothing but abandon those principles; and to destroy those principles would be a far greater travesty than to destroy its symbols.

I repeat a portion of that paragraph: to restrict people's means of expression would do nothing but abandon those principles, and to destroy these principles would be a far greater travesty than to destroy its symbol. Indeed, it would render the symbol meaningless.

Mr. Speaker, we are too secure as a Nation to risk our commitment to freedom by endeavoring to legislate patriotism. The flag burning amendment is one more example of the Republican tendency to play the patriot card, to distract the people from the consequences of their policy. And I wish to underscore that because there are no people in the House of Representatives who are not patriots. And there is no one here any more patriotic than anyone else. And for that reason alone we should not be toying with patriotism principles.

There are more important matters that Congress should be attending to. The way President Bush has shortchanged our veterans, we could deal with that, who have fought in defense of all that Old Glory signifies, the way that he has done this is an outrage to all my colleagues and they should be prepared to fight about it. Why are we spending time arguing about the physical desecration of the United States flag instead of voicing anger about the disservices done to what the flag stands for?

One would like to believe veterans this year would receive more than a Top Gun flash visit. As a grateful Nation, we should ensure that all veterans have adequate access to health care and timely benefits. In my district alone, veterans are being told that they are not going to be able to get benefits, and we have some new super eight province that we have established that if their income is at a certain level they will not qualify. Those are some things that I believe we must seriously look at.

I also think we must seriously reexamine the President's budget priorities

that cause this Congress to provide inadequate funding for those in uniform so as to allow tax cuts that will mostly advantage some few wealthy Americans. And since veterans health services have not been appropriately funded, the Bush administration has proposed to increase co-payments for prescription drugs and to charge high annual enrollment fees.

I oppose this proposal, as I am sure many Members on both sides of the aisle do, which punishes those in need by charging them money they do not have to pay for services they do need but cannot pay.

Current Secretary of State, the retired four star Army general, Colin Powell, that so many people tout so often and a few denigrate, voiced opposition to a similar flag amendment in the year 2000. Here is what Secretary Powell said at that time: ``The first amendment exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend,'' Colin Powell says, ``that great shield of democracy'' that stands right behind the Speaker of this House, ``to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''

That sounded so good maybe I ought to repeat it again: ``The first amendments exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''

I thank Secretary Powell.

This is a shallow amendment that addresses a nonissue. This is an unnecessary amendment that helps no one, but is likely to hurt us all. This is a dangerous amendment that should not be approved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary with distinction.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my good friend.

(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Speaker, Robert Williams wrote an article recently, and he is one of the Tuskegee Airmen, and the title of the article was ``A Tuskegee Airman Salutes The Flag.'' He talked initially about how he became a fighter pilot in the Second World War. And then he goes on, and I am skipping his first three paragraphs, but I quote him: ``That is why I cringe when I see Congress preparing to pass a constitutional amendment that would rewrite the first amendment for the first time ever to ban a form of protest. It is particularly hard for me,'' Mr. Williams says, ``as an American war veteran to see this action taken in the name of patriotism. For while we as a country view our flag as the very essence of patriotism, it is, in reality, a symbol of that spirit.

``And if the proposed flag desecration amendment wins final approval, our flag will become a symbol without substance. Don't get me wrong,'' Mr. Williams says, ``no one endorses the idea of burning the flag or desecrating it in any way. It is, to me, a very repugnant concept. But I find more threatening the idea that we would change the Constitution every time some American came up with a new repugnant way to protest.''

He talks a lot about what it took to become an airman from Ottumwa, Iowa, and how he and his buddy applied on the same day, and he was, with empathy, told to give up. He did not give up, and he became a part of a proud fighter force in our Air Force, the Tuskegee Airmen. And he closes, and I am skipping a lot of what Mr. Williams said, he said: ``Today, as I sit and recall the terrible attacks that we endured just to get the right to fight for our country, I am more certain that the elimination of any right to freedom of speech is dead bang wrong. Protest, after all, takes many forms and many shapes. Some of them may be seen as distasteful by some Americans. But if we change the Constitution to outlaw these less than acceptable forms of protest, then what we are doing is just as repugnant as burning the flag itself.''

Thank you, Robert Williams.

You know what we could or should be doing right now? We should be passing the 13 appropriation measures that is our mandate here in Congress. We should be providing proper health benefits, rather than turning veterans away, as they are in my district in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. We should be passing a prescription drug benefit rather than talking about desecrating the flag. We should be building schools for our children and grandchildren rather than leaving them deficits that will cause them not to even have school. We should be passing aid to public universities to stop tuition from going up the way it is in my State and 20 other States around this Nation.

How about providing a child care tax credit for working families, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) came here and asked unanimous consent to do, rather than talking about flag desecration?

We should be increasing the funding of the National Institute of Health research funds. We should be helping the Centers for Disease Control prepare us in the event there is a problem in this Nation. We should be passing pay raises for Federal judges in this country who too long have suffered at the whim of this United States Congress. We should be providing dollars for first responders in this country. We should be providing money for port security, better housing for veterans, paving roads, paying teachers; and I can go on and on.

But what we come here with is a repugnant measure. All of us, every man and woman in this House, is patriotic, whether they voted for the defense measure or not. All of us are superpatriots in the sense that we provide service for our country. And each in our own way ideologically, left and right, black and white, rich and poor come here for the purpose of upholding that great symbol of ours, the flag. And I do not need anybody to tell me about patriotism.

I lost relatives and friends in wars like every man and woman here has. And there are kids right now that would rather come home and know that we took care of some of those things that we needed to take care of rather than handle a handful of miscreants that might go out and foolishly burn a flag. There are laws, as one of our colleagues said, that takes care of that. Let those laws be sufficient for us. Let the flag reign supreme. Do not let it rain down the kind of desecration that not passing these measures would help us to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment that preserves congressional oversight authority over Department of Defense actions. U.S. Code, Title 10, directs the Department of Defense to prepare a variety of reports annually, quarterly, and monthly. The Secretary has argued, and with some currency, that the task of preparing these reports is too time-consuming and manpower intensive. The Secretary now seeks to have the requirement to submit reports deleted.

Mr. Chairman, I am all for efficiency in government, but let us be careful not to give away the House and the Senate. Mr. Chairman, included in the list of reports the Secretary of Defense seeks to delete from Title 10 are some that are critical for the House and Senate. We cannot abrogate our constitutional duty of checks and balances over the largest department of the Executive Branch simply because it takes time to prepare a report.

My amendment retains three reporting requirements that I believe are extremely important to this body's oversight authority.

The first directs the Secretary of Defense to inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Intelligence Committee on any actions taken consistent with activities outlined in the National Security Act. I can assure the Members, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this information is of the utmost importance to us.

The second is an annual report from the Secretary of Defense to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as the House Committee on International Relations and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This report lists all humanitarian assistance activities of the Department, including the cost of those activities.

The third report retained by my amendment requires the heads of each DOD department or agency to provide an annual report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services Committee on the management of the civilian workforce under their jurisdiction.

With the sweeping changes envisioned for the DOD civilian workforce, who can argue that these reports are no longer important?

I appreciate the Secretary's concerns. As a matter of fact, several of us met with Secretary Rumsfeld as he returned to the Department of Defense, and one of the questions that was put to him was what changes did he see this second time around. Very candidly and forthrightly he said the thing that struck him most is the number of reports that are required to be brought out by the Department of Defense.

I have included in this amendment timely and relevant reports to Congress and excluded from it original versions that would have required more.

We are about to write a very large check for the Department of Defense and rightly so, but at the end of the day let us make sure we know what we are paying for. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for his interest in my amendment, and especially I am grateful to him and his staff and the ranking member, and I believe that we have reached an acceptable compromise.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the ranking member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman that last quarter that he talked about in 2000, the tax measure had not been passed at that time, actually did not pass until June of 2001.

I would also like to say to the chairman who said that he is proud to be a Republican, he was born to cut taxes, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said. Well, I am proud to be a Democrat, and I was born to help those who cannot help themselves.

When we talk about people who pay taxes receiving benefits, there are people in this country who want to pay taxes, but cannot get a job.

Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues realize that this body will spend a meager 2 hours debating this tax cut? That is the House will dish out more than $2.4 billion to America's wealthiest for every minute it has debated this irresponsible proposal. Let me repeat myself for those who did not hear me the first time: $2.4 billion per minute of debate.

Mark Twain said there are two things you should never watch being made: sausage and legislation. The development of the Republican tax cut plan exemplifies the similarities between the nastiness and ramdomness of sausage-making and law-making. Those on the other side of the aisle have dismembered competing packages into a speculative $318 billion collage. The tax cut conference report is incomprehensible, politically motivated, and fiscally irresponsible. Outside of these hallowed halls is a visitors' center that is being built. Right now it is a big old hole, and what the Republicans are proposing is a $1 trillion hole that is a great metaphor for that big old hole right outside.

This ugly tax sausage is the product of the President and the Republican majority's troubling tax cut fixation. The tax cut conference report is a collection of various misplaced, gruesome, and dishonest provisions. The Frankenstein result is an offensive tax proposal with no legs to stand on, no eyes to see beyond the present, no voice of truth, and no heart with compassion for America's neediest.

For President Bush and the Republican majority, tax cuts are a one- size-fits-all solution. Last year's obese, obtuse, and downright obnoxious tax cut was, according to the majority, correct for the then- existing surplus.

This year while the economy is ailing, the President, House majority, and Senate majority all have professed that their own version of a tax cut plan will solve the current economic problems. Now we are being asked to subscribe to the untruthful claim that this fifth tax cut version more mangled and distorted with gimmicks than the previous four, will restart the economy. I ask that Members do not support this rule and underlying principle of the bigger the wallet, the bigger the benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and the underlying bill. Typically during debate on the rule, the minority expresses its outrage at the process by which the underlying bill is coming to the floor. We talk about the limited time that we have had to consider the content of the bill as well as the lack of opportunities that we have to offer amendments. Today is no different. I again come to the floor in disgust by the majority's rule which makes in order a meager 1 of the 11 amendments that were offered by Democrats, many of which, I note, addressed some of the bill's most controversial provisions. These commonsense amendments held the potential to transform a controversial bill into one that the entire House can support. Instead, the American people will never hear a discussion on these amendments because the Republican majority has shut off debate.

As I examined the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, it became increasingly obvious that the only ``healthy'' thing about this bill is the pocketbooks of the timber and logging industries and the only ``restoration'' that is being done is in the campaign coffers of the majority just in time for election day 2004. President Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican conservationist, told Congress in 1907: ``The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life.''

We are now faced with a vote clearly indicative of the concerns raised by President Roosevelt nearly 1 century ago. Whether we answer the challenge made by the late President or allow his legacy to fall victim to an influential timber lobby is a decision that Members will have to make later today. Republicans have crafted a bill that makes their approach toward curbing wildfires quite clear: if there are not any trees in the forests, then there will not be any forest fires. This approach is as infantile as it is misguided. The reality is H.R. 1904 opens up thousands upon thousands of forest acres to logging and destruction. With the passage of this bill, much of the 150 national forests spread across some 230 million acres of land initially set aside for protection nearly 100 years ago will again be under attack.

The majority's drafting of a logging bill under the guise of wildfire prevention mocks the seriousness of the issue. In 2002 alone, wildfires burned more than 6.5 million acres at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion. Hundreds of families were evacuated, and uncontrollable fires caused millions of dollars of damage and the death of firefighters. This bill not only loosens current law regarding the logging and controlled burning of our Nation's forests but it also eviscerates environmental studies and the ability of organizations and private citizens to submit appeals on the cutting down of as many as 20 million acres. Under the Republican bill, appeals are subject to unnecessary and unrealistic deadlines which insult the process. Federal judges are held to judicial deadlines that fail to consider caseloads and complexities of the appeal.

The irony of a December 2002 White House press release entitled ``Reducing the Threat of Catastrophic Wildfires and Improving Forest Health'' is shocking. The release notes, ``The President's Healthy Forest Initiative will ensure that needed environmental reviews and public review processes are conducted in the most efficient and effective way possible.'' It continues, ``The Departments of Agriculture and Interior will propose steps to promote early and more meaningful public participation on forest health project appeals.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904 certainly ensures that the public review process is efficient. It just eliminates the process before it even begins. Efficient? Yes. Democratic and patriotic? Absolutely not. Democrats, on the other hand, have submitted a fair, realistic, and noncontroversial substitute. It places priority on the protection of communities and water supplies most directly threatened by potential wildfires. And it requires that 85 percent of any funds appropriated under the bill are spent for projects in communities and watersheds. The Democratic substitute also protects community infrastructure and expands areas protected from logging under the bill.

It does not alter current judicial review and appeals procedures, and it authorizes nearly $4 billion for hazardous fuels reduction work. The Democratic substitute is as strong as the majority's bill is in areas where our two sides agree. But, most importantly, the Democratic substitute is stronger in the areas where the majority's bill fails.

Teddy Roosevelt once noted, ``Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our

people.'' He continued: ``A Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.''

This bill, Mr. Speaker, destroys our national forests and does little to preserve the strength of the American people. We must not allow the late President Roosevelt's warning to be realized by the 108th Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Just to answer my friend regarding what he thought was a rhetorical question, what I merely was suggesting was that the majority's bill will eliminate forests and if it eliminates forests then there will not be any wildfires.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it is that this bill will not destroy forests, then I do not know how to read. It is just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has a great deal of insight with reference to environmental matters.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a former Attorney General who had responsibilities with reference to the environment close up.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker, and we are waiting for her to return.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time our speaker has not arrived, but I do wish to speaker vigorously in closing in opposition to this modified closed rule.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) put it best earlier, the question is how long are we going to shut down the minority views. This is patently obvious from the speakers that we have heard here today that several of them have amendments that would help this process, not harm it at all. And the will of this body is being thwarted by those who would shut off the debate for whatever reason, and it is difficult to fathom a good reason that Members who represent significant numbers of people in this country are not having an opportunity to be heard.

On one matter alone, the curtailing of judicial review, I can speak from personal experience that we talk an awful lot about what impact legislation has on various institutions that are the beneficiaries of what we did. In the Federal judiciary there can be no real guidelines when a judge is trying to understand the process that has come to him or her, and what we have done by restricting ing judicial review is cause the public to be shut out.

I think that is an abomination. I think this rule is too restrictive, and I would urge all Members to please oppose the rule, notwithstanding your views with reference to the substantive-based bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 2001, ENRON filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and America's working men and women are still waiting for legislation that will protect and secure their pensions.

Nearly 50 million workers have 401(k)s or similar pension plans, and a number of provisions in H.R. 1000 are not in their best interests. I read H.R. 1000 with one question in mind, ``Would an ENRON employee have benefited from this legislation?''

The answer to that question is ``no.'' Not only does H.R. 1000 fail to protect working men and women from corporate abuses, in some cases it puts their retirement incomes at even greater risk.

This bill opens a loop-hole for financial advisors, allowing self- interested investment firms to be the principal financial advisors to employees. This bill also locks employees into 3- year stock holding situations, undermining their ability to diversify and protect their retirement if the company fails.

H.R. 1000 also fails to protect older workers' retirement incomes in cash balance pension conversions. Without protections, many older workers could see their pensions slashed by as much as 50%.

The Democratic substitute addresses these issues, and it also ensures that the retirement packages of employees are equal to those of their employers.

It is a sad fact that Congress is now responsible for enacting morality laws for a corporate America, who, if Enron and Global Crossings are any example, has demonstrated an inability to conduct itself ethically.

We are the last line of defense between the rank and file employee and his corporate hierarchy. H.R. 1000 contains too many loopholes, oversights, and executive exemptions to effectively secure the pensions of our nation's working men and women.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1000, and vote for the Democratic substitute. I know that if Enron's former employees were able to vote here today, they would do just that.