Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the current economic crisis continues to take a devastating toll on families and businesses across this nation, and the world.

Never before have we witnessed so much economic turmoil. Within a matter of months, Americans saw much of their life savings and their home equity disappear. Nest eggs evaporated literally overnight. Plans for a college education dashed. The dream of homeownership turned into a nightmare of foreclosure.

Today, unemployment continues to rise, credit markets are in a shambles, and businesses large and small are closing. The problems in our banking and financial system have infected the global economy, undermining confidence in our own markets.

To boost sagging demand in our economy, the federal government is now spending hundreds of billions of dollars at a pace that is unprecedented in our history. As the Congress and the new administration put in place measures to resolve this crisis, it is time for the Congress to provide the American people with a clear assessment on how we got into this mess and what ought to be done to prevent it from happening again.

Frankly speaking, given all the money that's been spent, the American people deserve a full accounting. They deserve an honest and unvarnished assessment of the causes of this crisis. Because, without a thorough diagnosis, how can we make sure that a crisis like this never happens again?

That is why I am joining with Congressman Steven LaTourette in calling for the establishment of an independent, bipartisan commission, charged with examining the root causes of the current global financial crisis.

It would resemble the 9/11 Commission in its objectivity and independence and have one year to investigate the crisis. It would have the authority to refer to law enforcement any evidence that institutions or individuals may have violated existing laws. At the end of its investigation, the Commission will report to the President and to the Congress its recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes necessary to protect our country from a repeat of this financial collapse.

I voted against the Wall Street bailout proposals last fall, because, as I said back then, they did not deal with the root causes of the crisis; they failed to give the American people a full and fair accounting of what happened; and they failed to hold accountable those who caused the crisis.

Today, I still believe we must do this and unless we take these actions, we will be failing in our responsibility as an institution to fully serve the people who elected us. I urge my colleagues and all Americans to support this proposal.

Madam Speaker, in 2004, the Congress enacted changes in the federal tax code intended to address real and perceived abuses related to charitable donations of vehicles. Those changes, while well- intended, have had unanticipated and serious consequences. Over the last four years, charitable vehicle donations have plummeted. The steep decrease in revenue has forced many charities--in my state and across the country--to reduce services to their beneficiaries.

The adverse impact on charities is especially alarming in the context of the recession currently gripping the nation. The economic downturn has exacerbated demand for charitable services. But the changes enacted in 2004 are strangling the charitable contributions on which those services depend.

I have introduced legislation to refine those changes in ways that restore better balance to this provision of the tax code and fulfill the original intent of Congress: to promote charitable donations. Every car and truck donated to charity, moreover, would help stimulate sales of new automobiles--at a fraction of the per-transaction cost of any auto bailout proposal.

Before 2005, a taxpayer could deduct the fair market value (FMV) of vehicles donated to charity. Under Section 170 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, a donor could claim the FMV as determined by well-established used car pricing guides, as long as the FMV was under $5000. However, there was concern that some taxpayers were gaming the system by claiming excessive deductions, and that there was insufficient IRS oversight to detect or police these problems.

In its FY2005 budget request, the Administration proposed reforming the rules governing vehicle donations by allowing a deduction only if the taxpayer obtained a qualified appraisal for the vehicle. However, the Congress rejected that proposal and went much further. The tax code changes included in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108- 357) limited deductions over $500 to the actual proceeds of sale of the vehicle by the charity--regardless of appraised value. Only if the charity actually keeps and uses the car (rather than sells it for the resulting revenue) can the donor deduct its FMV.

The rules took effect for tax year 2005. Today, a taxpayer with an older used car in poor condition can call many charities nationwide to have the vehicle towed at no cost and then claim a $500 deduction. However, a taxpayer with a newer-model car in good condition has no idea what deduction will be allowed until the vehicle is actually sold. That sale may not occur until months later, forcing the donor to roll the dice on the final deduction amount.

During congressional debate, proponents argued that the changes would not add new burdens on vehicle donors or adversely impact charitable giving. To the contrary, evidence abounds that the changes have seriously disrupted charitable giving and forced many charities to curtail services to low-income beneficiaries.

Two recent government reports have concluded that charitable vehicle donations have dropped significantly since federal tax law changed four years ago. In March 2008, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of 10 national charities over the two years after the law changed found that vehicle donations had dropped by 39 percent and that the resulting charitable revenues decreased by 25 percent. In May 2008, the Internal Revenue Service documented that the number of vehicles donated in 2005, the first year after the rules changed, decreased by 67 percent and that their value fell by over 80 percent.

To feel informed enough to decide whether to donate a vehicle, taxpayers need a reasonable degree of certainty about the resulting deduction. Otherwise, alternatives such as a private sale or dealer trade-in become more attractive. This is clearly not what the Congress intended.

The objective of the original 1986 car donation provision in the federal tax code was to encourage charitable donations and to help charities develop new ways to generate contributions. The 2004 amendments have undermined that goal without improving IRS enforcement. As a result, charities and their beneficiaries are suffering.

The change has affected not only the number of donations, but also the quality of donated vehicles. News articles from across the country reflect plummeting donation rates and the precipitous decline in revenue of non-profit community organizations. The news coverage itself has exacerbated the problem. Potential donors concerned about the changes are discouraged further by the perception of the new burdens associated with the amended rules.

Charities that had operated successful vehicle donation programs, either independently or though third-party fundraisers, have been hit hard. Those unable to cover overhead costs have eliminated vehicle donation programs and resolved to forego the resulting revenue stream. It appears that no charities have initiated or expanded vehicle donation programs over the past two years.

Contrary to reassurances offered during the congressional debate, the tax law changes constituted a classic example of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. This overreach has had serious ramifications for social services provided by non-profit groups across the country. Modest tax incentives are critical to sustaining charitable contributions, including in-kind gifts. The decline in vehicle donations since 2004 could be addressed by minor legislative refinements that would also address potential abuses and buttress IRS enforcement.

Following are the text and technical analysis of my proposed legislation, which I view as a starting point for new congressional debate on this important issue.

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to promote charitable

donations of qualified vehicles.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in congratulating the Town of Truro, Massachusetts on the 300th anniversary of its incorporation. Since its founding, Truro has enjoyed a reputation as a diverse and culturally rich town, whose welcoming residents and awe-inspiring landscapes are famous throughout New England.

Truro's history harks back to November 1620, when the Pilgrims visited the area while their ship, the Mayflower, was anchored in what is now Provincetown Harbor. It was here that the Pilgrims found their first fresh water, and on Corn Hill, overlooking Cape Cod Bay, the voyagers found a cache of seed corn belonging to the natives which they stole to provide seed for their own spring crop. Determining that the land here was unsuitable for their purposes, the Pilgrims continued up the coast of the Cape to present-day Eastham and then ventured across the Bay to Plimoth.

On July 16, 1709, the Town of Truro gained its independence. Formerly a part of Eastham, the nascent Town encompassed the district previously known as Pamet.

During the Revolutionary War, Truro's militia demonstrated remarkable skill and bravery in keeping the British at bay. Once, the members marched in a circular formation behind a barrier dune to convey the impression that there was a large force assembled ready to defend the town. At the time, Provincetown Harbor was controlled by the British, and there was no protection for Truro save its own meager militia.

Truro has a long and distinguished seafaring history, and at one time had a shipyard which produced large vessels in the Pamet River basin. Truro whalers sailing from other ports ventured as far as the Arctic and the Falkland Islands. Ultimately, the Town of Truro's intrepid and expert whalers helped spur an industry that became profitable and culturally significant throughout coastal New England.

In fact, much of Truro's economy was once dependent on the sea. Truro's men were whalers, and the shipyard built large commercial vessels to sustain their activities. There were several try works in town to render the whale blubber into lamp oil, and salt works dotted the shores and hillsides, providing much-needed salt to preserve the catch. These industries--along with subsistence and commercial farming--have been replaced largely by the seasonal tourist industry that currently fuels the local economy.

Today, slightly more than 2,100 residents call Truro home year-round. During the summer months, the tiny Town's population swells by an estimated 17,000 to 18,000 people anxious to experience the breathtaking scenery for which Truro is known. More than half of its landmass is within the Cape Cod National Seashore. Truro's beaches stretch unbroken between its borders, offering water access for swimming, fishing, and boating.

The first lighthouse--what many consider an icon of Cape Cod--was built in Truro at Highland in 1797. At the time, the numerous shoals off the ``great backside'' claimed many ships as the prevailing winds and waves drove vessels to the shore. This original lighthouse was declared unsafe in 1857 and a new tower, still standing and still in- use, was built to replace it.

Truro, with its glorious sunsets; noisy, storm-surf-beaten beaches; tranquil, sunny berry-laden hills; deliciously refreshing fresh-water springs; adventuresome paths; and acres of protected National Seashore land, has been home or temporary haven to politicians, musicians, puppeteers, pirates, poets, and ordinary folks. Its people are hardy and resilient. Tradesmen and professionals, artists and writers, bards and photographers, fishermen and farmers, retirees and schoolchildren all contribute to the unique fabric of the Town's community. Some grew up here; many others have chosen this special place as their home.

It is with pleasure and pride that I join Truro's residents on this auspicious day to celebrate all the achievements the Town has accomplished, and all those to come. Happy birthday, Truro. May the years ahead be ever prosperous and bright.

Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in commemorating the 125th Anniversary of the Town of Bourne, Massachusetts.

It was on this day in 1884 that the Town of Bourne claimed its rightful independence, a movement that marked the inception of Bourne Incorporated. The significance of the Town's foundation is reflected in historical data that depict a prolonged effort to distinguish its identity. As noted by the 1984 Bourne Centennial Celebration Committee, ineffectual attempts at separation were made in the late 1770s and early 1800s--but it was not until 1883 that a successful movement began.

In large measure, geography governed the separation. Long trips were needed to get to the town meeting and in some cases to the meetinghouse. But more importantly, the division was a profound expression of the free will of the people. This movement perfectly epitomized the meaning of the phrase ``of the people, by the people, for the people.'' As the youngest township on Cape Cod, the Town of Bourne should be recognized for what has been its everlasting pledge to the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is of the utmost importance that we pass on Bourne's rich history to current and future generations, and that we encourage the Town's youth to take pride in their heritage. As we reflect on the Town's 125- year existence, we must proudly recognize the pioneers who spearheaded the Town's founding and the superior achievements the Town and its citizens have realized over the years.

I congratulate all the citizens of the Town of Bourne on this auspicious day, and extend my best wishes for a successful and prosperous future.

Mr. Chairman, last year in the United States, over 2 million homes went into foreclosure, and the rate of mortgage defaults is now accelerating. If we don't act soon, today, then our entire economy is at risk. That's how we got here to begin with.

What I find particularly disturbing is that the people who got us into this mess oppose the bill. They'd prefer to have the taxpayers cover their losses and have them continue to bail them out.

Of the most recent issue of BusinessWeek, not a Democratic publication, by the way, this is what it says on the cover: ``Home Wreckers: How the Banks Are Making the Foreclosure Crisis Worse.''

Here is their take on this issue of this kind of legislation. I'm reading:

``The bad mortgages that started the current financial crisis have produced a terrifying wave of home foreclosures. Unless this surge eases, even the most extravagant Federal stimulus spending won't spur economic recovery . . . One reason foreclosures are so rampant is that banks and their advocates in Washington have delayed, diluted and obstructed attempts (like this) to address the problem.''

So, if we want to have taxpayers keep bailing out the banks with no end in sight, that's one option or we can compel the banks to sit down with debtors and mitigate the losses, which would benefit the consumer, the lender in the end and the investors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in recognizing the First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church of Scituate, MA on its 375th Anniversary.

The rich spiritual tradition of the First Parish Church dates all the way back to seventeenth-century London, when the Puritan separatist, the Rev. Henry Jacob, joined with others to establish the first non- Anglican church in England. In 1624, Jacob was succeeded by the Rev. John Lothrop, who led a small congregation in worshiping secretly in taverns, homes and fields. When the Bishop of London learned of their activities, Rev. Lothrop and his followers were arrested and imprisoned in the notorious jail, the Clink.

Upon his release two years later in 1634, Rev. Lothrop and a number of his congregation left England bound for Boston, thirsting for the freedom to worship that the New World promised. On January 8, 1634, Lothrop came together with 11 other men and women to officially form the First Church of Scituate. Rev. Lothrop's distinguished lineage has included U.S. Presidents, Supreme Court justices, diplomats and prominent businessmen and women.

It is fitting that the anniversary of the Church's founding falls so close to the day we honor Martin Luther King, Jr., the greatest champion of civil rights and equality our Nation has known. Under strong ministerial and lay leadership, the Church has maintained a steadfast commitment to worship, provided spiritual guidance to parishioners, and sounded a clarion call for justice and human dignity.

In colonial times, the Church's ministers and laity fought for religious tolerance on behalf of Quakers and Baptists. They spoke out against the shackles of slavery, and provided care for Union soldiers during the Civil War. During the 19th century, Church leaders advocated vociferously for the economic rights of workers. As an integral part of our community and the global public square, the First Parish Church of Scituate has left an indelible mark for generations to come.

On this momentous occasion, I congratulate the Church's current leader, Rev. Richard M. Stower, and its entire congregation. I wish them all the best for continued success in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of

Representatives can join me in honoring an esteemed member of the legal profession, dedicated community activist, and a constituent of mine, Mr. Walter Howard Mayo, III.

For nearly 30 years, Howard has led a distinguished career as Managing Partner of Casner & Edwards, LLP, bringing his invaluable expertise in civil litigation, estate planning, and telecommunications law to the greater Boston area. Prior to joining the firm, Howard served as an appellate attorney with the Federal Maritime Commission here in Washington, followed by a position as Chief of the Administrative Division within the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. No matter the challenge, Howard has risen to the occasion. His astute knowledge, wisdom, and high work ethic have earned him the respect and praise of colleagues and clients alike.

As a resident of Orleans, Howard has donated admirable time and effort to enriching the civic and cultural fabric of our Commonwealth. Most notably, he has served as both Secretary and Vice President of the Board of Governors of the Handel & Haydn Society, a nationally acclaimed orchestral and choral performing arts organization based out of Boston. Howard has also been active in numerous historical societies, genealogical associations, and charitable organizations--a testament of his strong commitment to improving his community.

On behalf of all those whose lives Howard has touched over the years, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank him for his hard work and service. As he closes out this chapter of his career, I have every confidence that he will meet success in all his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, as Members of Congress who have long been strong proponents of American small businesses, we were pleased to include a small business representative on the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Travel Promotion established under H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion Act of 2008, which was recently passed by the House of Representatives.

Small businesses are the foundation of the American economy and play an integral role in the travel and tourism industry. A small business representative on the board would offer a unique perspective on promoting travel to the United States. As such, it is imperative that this individual has significant, recent or current experience operating or being integrally involved in a small business' operation.

We look forward to enactment of the Travel Promotion Act, and to the small business representative on the Corporation for Travel Promotion's board being a strong voice for small business in this country.

Madam Speaker, this is been a long and, at times, tedious, but productive process.

When we began last September, I said that I hoped our efforts would be ``truly bipartisan, and conducted in as . . . open a manner as possible.'' The committee's transparency and level of collaboration had to reflect the deep commitment to this institution held by the individual members of this select committee. I believe we have stayed true to that goal, and have demonstrated, throughout the past year, that bipartisanship does exist, and more importantly, can work.

Norm Ornstein--an American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar, and a Roll Call contributing writer--is someone I hold in high regard. In May, he reflected on the rancor and partisanship that had taken hold of the House, and in so doing, referenced our Committee. He wrote:

This week, indeed this whole month, will be a key test in

whether the political process in Washington can rise above

the dysfunction [and partisanship] that has been the norm . .

.

He went on to say,

That dynamic appears to be gelling on another front with

the emergence of public hearings on the ``stolen vote'' from

August of last year . . . It appears, though, that instead of

a long deliberative process creating a greater understanding

of the insensitivities and failings of both the majority and

the minority, and a determination on both sides to do better,

the result will be another wedge issue driving more distrust

and hostility between the parties.

I have long regarded him and his work with tremendous respect, for its insight and accuracy. However, I believe I can say that in this case, he was wrong, and we exceeded expectations. Against the apparent odds, we will be adopting, at the conclusion of this meeting, a single, bipartisan report of which I believe we can all be proud.

I must recognize and commend the Committee members, who are not just my colleagues, but are my friends, and with whom it has truly been an honor to serve. Mike Pence, the Ranking Member, has throughout this entire task brought a spirit of comity, collegiality and a genuine love of the institution; Steve LaTourette and Kenny Hulshof with whom I've worked before and whose integrity and familiarity with the issues before us served the committee well. Of course, my Democratic colleagues: Artur Davis, who took on the burden of serving as Vice- Chair, and thereby, a lead role in the investigation; and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who, as usual, brought adeptness, civility and focus to our work.

I also want to thank a number of other individuals for their critical guidance and assistance. Former House Parliamentarian Charlie Johnson, whose infinite wisdom on these matters provided a foundation for the committee's work, and whose continued consultation on the recommendations allowed us to submit a product that truly serves the institution. In addition, I want to thank Judy Schneider and Mike Koempel of CRS for their hours of assistance on our interim report, which charted the course of our investigation, and their invaluable support throughout.

In addition, we would not have been able to conduct an appropriately thorough investigation without the assistance and cooperation from the Clerk of the House, Lorraine Miller, and her staff; House Parliamentarian John Sullivan, and his staff; and the various leadership staff. They provided their time and effort without hesitation, and for that, we want to acknowledge and thank them.

The assistance provided by our outside counsel--King and Spalding's Tom Spulak and George Crawford on the Democratic side, and Dickstein Shapiro's Mark Paoletta and Andrew Snowdon, was exceptional. Each one of them has a long career of service to this House, and I am thankful that once again, the House received the benefit of their knowledge and dedication.

Lastly, I must praise the diligence and collaboration of the committee's professional staff. They dedicated the time and effort to see this effort through, while still carrying out their existing responsibilities in their primary offices. Mr. Davis' legislative counsel, Chanelle Hardy; Ms. Herseth Sandlin's Deputy Chief of Staff, Russ Levsen; Mr. LaTourette's Chief of Staff, Joe Guzzo, and Mr. Hulshof's Chief of Staff, Eric Rasmussen, and now Aaron Smith. I especially want to thank my legislative counsel, Davida Walsh, and Mike Pence's counsel, Josh Pitcock, who assumed the respective roles of Democratic and Republican staff director. I also want to extend my deepest appreciation to the committee's Democratic and Republican General Counsels, Muftiah McCartin and Hugh Halpern--from the House Rules Committee. They have been tireless in every capacity, and their extensive expertise has been invaluable.

Turning to the report, I believe it speaks for itself. What you will see when you read it--and we are suggesting that it be required reading for the entire Membership--JOKING--is that Roll Call 814 arose out of a confluence of factors that I will not repeat now--but that it was a ``perfect storm,'' if you will.

I believe that the core recommendation is the repeal of the new House rule added to clause 2(a) of rule XX at the beginning of the 110th Congress. For those who are unfamiliar, it is a single sentence that reads ``a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.'' As I have said before--I thought it sounded good at the time, so I'm saying it again--it is ``a rule that was enacted with a noble intent to curb other perceived abuses, but a rule that is, at best, difficult to enforce, and at worst, the catalyst for the raw anger that we observed on August 2nd.''

It is unworkable because, in the words of Mr. Johnson, ``others can claim to know because they have seen pressure brought to bear externally, but it is the Chair's intent as discerned by the Chair at the moment in time as the vote is being kept open,'' that is dispositive. Furthermore, it would be ``inappropriate to require the Chair to declare a reason for delaying a vote. However, without such a declaration, it would be virtually impossible to find a violation of the rule.

Worse than its impracticality, however, is the corrosive incentive the rule creates for the

membership to genuinely question the motives of their colleagues in the Chair. At a time when rancor and tension exist in the House chamber and when the parties increasingly view each other with suspicion, the rule acts to compound the negativity. I know that the rule was a good faith effort to infuse integrity and transparency into the voting process-- laudable goals that are not lost on anyone here; however, I guess what I'm saying is, its time to go back to the drawing board. I think all of us on this panel would be happy to share our thoughts--in detail-- should the leadership choose to take our recommendation.

I would just like to take a moment to speak about Mike McNulty, the man who was in the Chair during Roll Call 814. For quite some time but I would say now, more than ever, what is lacking in Washington is the willingness to admit mistake, acknowledge error, to be candid and forthright about a misstep. The irony, I think, is it's a rare person who doesn't find such an admission refreshing. However, our custom and practice tends to be: ``blame the other guy.'' Not Mike McNulty. He is special, truly exceptional, not just as a member and presiding officer, but as a human being. And while his character and integrity has long been recognized on both sides of the aisle, I think this incident has both magnified and confirmed this perception. We all know it was a most difficult moment for him. But he earned our respect not only for his apology to the membership, but for his conduct and candor with the committee as well. The Nation needs more Mike McNultys in Congress, and we're all grateful, and have been better served, by his willingness to resume his duties in the Chair. I just want to reiterate here today, the respect and admiration the members have for him.

It should be noted that during his interview with the committee, Republican whip, Roy Blunt told us that after August 2, he personally reached out to Mr. McNulty and told him that he ``should feel confident in his respect that the Members have for him personally.''

Similarly, the Republican Leader Boehner went to the floor on August 3--the next day--and said: ``I accept the regrets offered by my friend from New York. Having been in the Chair myself, I can understand how it can happen. He and I are friends. He is, in fact, one of the fairest Members who could ever be in the chair.''

And certainly, this view is echoed on the Democratic side of the aisle, as stated by our own Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, who said: ``I believe Mr. McNulty is an extraordinarily honest person of high integrity . . . He's a wonderful human being.''

And while I commend Mr. McNulty for his honesty and his courage, I also want to suggest that even in error, he has made a contribution to this institution. As I've said in at least one of our prior meetings, none of us here sought this assignment, but I believe strongly that this committee's report is a benefit to the institution.

I am also hopeful that an even greater benefit has accrued. Many outside this committee viewed it with skepticism and cynicism. One the one hand, we would be the product of a political stunt, a microcosm of the partisanship and rancor in the House; on other hand, certainty that we would never meet, would never investigate or deliberate, and certainly never report.

To revisit Ornstein's article, he further stated,

[If we have] a House as deeply divided along partisan lines

as it was in the previous Congress--and a House with no

common denominator of trying to do something to solve the

problems we have at home and abroad . . . if we can't [reduce

this divide and distrust], the clear and urgent needs of the

country will be left to fester.

The issues we've examined in this committee--most notoriously, a botched motion to recommit on a bill that never became law--do not compare to the issues we're currently facing as a Congress, and as a Nation. However, in light of Mr. Ornstein's ominous warning, I am hopeful that what we've done here is to demonstrate that we've succeeded at what the people want and deserve--which is accountability, responsibility, and transparency; and the commitment, the wherewithal and the humility to put our heads together to solve the problems that confront us.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me express my gratitude to the Chair of the subcommittee for his leadership, as well as to the ranking member, Mr. Whitfield, for his efforts, as well as the Chair and ranking member of the full committee, Messrs. Dingell and Barton.

I am pleased to join with the minority whip, my friend Roy Blunt, and 244 bipartisan House cosponsors to encourage support for the Travel Promotion Act of 2008. This bill will reverse the decline in the number of overseas visitors coming to the United States.

In a global economy, the world travel market is important. It means jobs and new business opportunities. This is a market that is growing, it is expanding, but our share of it keeps getting smaller. Overseas tourists, scientists, businessmen and students are going elsewhere, put off by the red tape and confusing guidelines for entry into the United States. Even the weak dollar is not enticing enough visitors to reverse this trend.

This drop is not only impacting our economy negatively, but we are missing an important opportunity to improve our image in the world. Data clearly demonstrates that it will help improve our image across the globe by connecting visitors with the most effective ambassadors that we have, the American people.

Once here, foreign visitors get to know us, who we are as a people and our values. This promotes respect for America and for Americans. It helps make the world a safer place for all of us, and it is the most cost-effective public diplomacy initiative we could ever undertake, at no cost to the American taxpayers.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the strong bipartisan support for the legislation, and close my remarks by urging the entire House to vote for its passage.

I would be remiss not to acknowledge the effort and the time that was put into this particular proposal by the minority whip, Mr. Blunt. We all are in his debt.

Madam Speaker, Once in awhile, this House gets it just right. And when that happens, it's usually because we're working well together, across the aisle., Today I'm very pleased to join with the Minority Whip, my friend Roy Blunt and with 244 bipartisan House cosponsors--in bringing to the floor the Travel Promotion Act of 2008. Without the support of so many on both sides of the aisle, as Well as their staffers, this day would not be possible.

The bill addresses the sharp decline in the number of overseas visitors to the United States. The world travel market is expanding but our share is getting smaller. Overseas tourists and businessmen and students are going elsewhere--even though the weak dollar should make the U.S. a cheap vacation. This drop has been felt in every sector of our economy, and more importantly--in our relationship with the rest of the world.

The reason is painfully simple. We don't make a coherent effort to tell America's story, to say to foreign visitors that they are welcome. Or to explain the confusing and sometimes intimidating rules and delays and even indignities that have become part of our visa and border entry process for foreigners since September 11, 2001.

Let me make clear that most of these rules are absolutely critical to our national security. And that we're constantly working to improve them.

The problem is most overseas visitors don't know that. And that what they do know comes from the echo chamber of the foreign press, which is often all too happy to exploit the horror stories about Fortress America--stories which then get repeated over and over again.

A constituent of mine on Cape Cod--where travel and tourism is literally the lifeblood of our local economy--described it as trying to entice a patron to a restaurant. First, he said, you detain and search the customer. Maybe pull his credit record and ask about past parking tickets and other legal transgressions. Then you hope he'll wander in for an expensive meal.

Even official visitors are not immune. Not too long ago the leader of a delegation from the Russian Duma visiting Capitol Hill concluded our inter-parliamentary meetings by saying he had thoroughly enjoyed our time together--and that he was never, under any circumstances, returning to the United States again. All because of the way he was treated during the entry process.

We are one of the only nations in the world that leaves the foreign travel marketplace to chance, with no official strategy to compel foreigners to visit the United States. The economic impact is staggering. The drop in foreign travel to the U.S. since 9/11 translates into a loss of $94 billion in visitor spending. A loss of $16 billion in tax revenue. And the loss of 200,000 American jobs in nearly every congressional district in this nation. No city in the United States has been hit harder than Boston.

In that spirit, I believe that this proposal will inject much needed capital into the American economy. Travel and tourism, when the sector is doing well, drives economic growth and creates opportunity at every level of the economy: from the airlines, to the hotel staff, to the cooks and dishwashers, to the tourguides. This bill will drive growth and create jobs here at home.

Even worse, is the effect on the already-tarnished face of the United States around the globe. If we're really worried about the distortions about us learned in madrassas, the best antidote is to encourage a first-hand look at our country and our people.

The Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight, which I chair, recently concluded a series of hearings on America's declining image in the world. The conclusions were overwhelming and deeply alarming.

Zogby International found that ``Arabs who know Americans, Arabs who visited America . . . they tend to like our people, our culture, our products and our values more.''

The same poll found that people who say ``yes'' when asked, ``Have you been to the United States, or would you like to come to the United States?'' are 25-30 points more favorable than those who say ``no''. The survey also found that students who visit the United States have more positive views about us than non-visitors by a factor of 10 percent--and that this favorable reaction was also shared by their family and friends.

One of the key recommendations for Congress from the bipartisan U.S.- Muslim Engagement Project, is to expand exchange programs ``with a smarter targeting of visa restrictions to enable Muslims who pose a low security risk, especially journalists, business people, and religious leaders, to enter the U.S. more easily.''

Travel nearly always changes lives and attitudes for the better. Both the visitor and host open their minds and hearts to new ideas--and to each other. We all know that the best ambassadors for our fundamental values are ordinary Americans. Once here, foreign visitors get to know us and our good intentions. When they return home, they tell family and friends about our cities and towns, our beaches and mountains, our ballparks and skyscrapers and farms and museums. This is an idealistic vision, but it is one that is supported by reams of studies and data.

To discourage travel to the U.S. is to squander our best resource in the war of ideas: the American people. And as a consequence, an entire generation of future world leaders will grow up knowing as little about us as we do about them. There is one thing that is certain--if we continue down this road, we will live in a safer and less secure world.

To promote America, we must promote travel. That's Public Diplomacy 101. Toward that end, H.R. 3232 would establish the non-profit Corporation for Travel Promotion, at no expense to the taxpayer and with enormous economic benefits in red and blue congressional districts across the Nation.

That's why H.R. 3232 enjoys the support of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Olympic Committee, National Association of Manufacturers and 50 State tourism directors and thousands of mom-and-pop business that benefit from overseas travelers.

As Senator Dick Lugar remarked recently, we as a Nation have become ``inhospitable''. And I'm pleased to report that Senator Lugar signed on last week as the 50th cosponsor of the Senate companion of H.R. 3232. Followed yesterday by Senator Casey as number 51--yet more evidence of the bipartisan nature of this legislation.

In that spirit, I again want to express my appreciation for the leadership of Congressman Blunt, and that of Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Rush, as well as our colleagues on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees and their respective staffs, in working so cooperatively to move the bill to the floor. As one constructive element of those discussions, I would like to specifically note my expectation that the program to market America abroad will create business opportunities for marketing and advertising professionals for minority--and women-owned businesses.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and look forward to joining with our colleagues in the Senate to enact it into law in the very near future.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Pence and I submit for the Record the following statement on behalf of the Select Committee on the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007:

The Select Committee to Investigate the Voting

Irregularities of August 2, 2007, was created by House

Resolution 611 to investigate the circumstances surrounding

the record vote on the motion to recommit on H.R. 3161. That

resolution required that the Select Committee submit its

final report not later than September 15, 2008. While the

Select Committee will not be able to file its report by that

date, we expect to file the report shortly thereafter.

William D. Delahunt,

Chairman.

Mike Pence,

Ranking Republican Member.

Madam Speaker, in 2004, the Congress enacted changes in the federal tax code intended to address real and perceived abuses related to charitable donations of vehicles. Those changes, while well- intended, have had unanticipated and serious consequences. Over the last three years, charitable vehicle donations have plummeted. The steep decrease in revenue has forced many charities--in my state and across the country--to reduce services to their beneficiaries.

The objectives of the 2004 changes were commendable. But the specific requirements have choked vehicle donations and the charities--and charitable services--which depend on them. Today I am introducing legislation to refine those changes in ways that restore better balance to this provision of the tax code and fulfills the original intent of Congress: to promote charitable donations.

Before 2005, a taxpayer could deduct the fair market value (FMV) of vehicles donated to charity. Under Section 170 of Title 26 of the US Code, a donor could claim the FMV as determined by well-established used car pricing guides, as long as the FMV was under $5000. However, there was concern that some taxpayers were gaming the system by claiming excessive deductions; and that there was insufficient IRS oversight to detect or police these problems.

In its FY2005 budget request, the Administration proposed reforming the rules governing vehicle donations by allowing a deduction only if the taxpayer obtained a qualified appraisal for the vehicle. However, the Congress rejected that proposal and went much further. The final version, included in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (PL 108- 357), limited deductions over $500 to the actual proceeds of sale of the vehicle by the charity, regardless of appraised value. Only if the charity actually keeps and uses the car (rather than sells it for the resulting revenue) can the donor deduct its FMV.

The rules took effect for tax year 2005. Today, a taxpayer with an older used car in poor condition can call many charities nationwide to have the vehicle towed at no cost and then claim a $500 deduction. However, a taxpayer with a newer-model car in good condition has no idea what deduction will be allowed until the vehicle is actually sold. That sale may not occur until months later, forcing the donor to roll the dice on the final deduction amount.

During congressional debate, proponents argued that the changes would not add new burdens on vehicle donors or adversely impact charitable giving. To the contrary, evidence abounds that the changes have seriously disrupted charitable giving and forced many charities to curtail services to low-income beneficiaries.

Two new government reports have concluded that charitable vehicle donations have plummeted since federal tax law changed four years ago. In March 2008, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of 10 national charities over the two years after the law changed found that vehicle donations had dropped by 39 percent and that the resulting charitable revenues decreased by 25 percent. In May 2008, the Internal Revenue Service documented that the number of vehicles donated in 2005, the first year after the rules changed, decreased by 67 percent and that their value fell by over 80 percent.

To feel informed enough to decide whether to donate a vehicle, taxpayers need a reasonable degree of certainty about the resulting deduction. Otherwise, alternatives such as a private sale or dealer trade-in become more attractive. This is clearly not what the Congress intended.

The objective of the original 1986 car donation provision in the federal tax code was to encourage charitable donations. The 2004 amendments have undermined that goal without improving IRS enforcement. As a result, charities and their beneficiaries are suffering.

The change has affected not only the number of donations, but also the quality of donated vehicles. News articles from across the country reflect plummeting donation rates and the precipitous decline in revenue of non-profit community organizations. The news coverage itself has exacerbated the problem; potential

donors concerned about the changes are discouraged further by the perception of the new burdens associated with the amended rules.

Charities which had operated successful vehicle donation programs, either independently or though third-party fundraisers, have been hit hard. Those unable to cover overhead costs have eliminated vehicle donation programs and resolved to forego the resulting revenue stream. It appears that no charities have initiated or expanded vehicle donation programs over the past two years.

Contrary to reassurances offered during the congressional debate, the tax law changes constituted a classic ``baby and bathwater'' overreach that has seriously impacted social services provided by non-profit groups across the country. Modest tax incentives are critical to sustaining charitable contributions, including in-kind gifts. The decline in vehicle donations since 2004 could be addressed by minor legislative refinements that would also address potential abuses and buttress IRS enforcement.

Following are the text and technical analysis of my proposed legislation, which I view as a starting point for new congressional debate on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Record would reflect on rollcall No. 491 that I would be recorded as an ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in honoring the notable career of a distinguished member of the United States Coast Guard, and a constituent, Captain Robert W. Durfey, Jr.

Captain Durfey has led an exemplary career, having served in the United States Coast Guard for over 30 years. He has amassed a vast institutional knowledge after decades of experience in a wide variety of operational, command, and staff assignments. In addition, his dedication to his fellow man and community is deep and ingrained, as evidenced by his volunteer work rebuilding housing for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Captain Durfey graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1978 with a Bachelor of Science in History/Government. In 1994, he earned his Masters in Public Administration from the J.F.K. School of Government at Harvard University. He has served at six Air Stations and five Groups along the west, gulf and east coasts as well as Puerto Rico. He has logged over 4800 helicopter flight hours and has flown more than 400 Search and Rescue missions.

He served as a Deck Watch Officer on a Buoy Tender in Alaska before going to Naval flight training to become a helicopter pilot, where he became Coast Guard Aviator #2113. Just prior to his Boston assignment, Captain Durfey commanded the Coast Guard's largest Group-Air Station combination, in Atlantic City, New Jersey. His helicopter and boat crews prosecuted over 1,800 search and rescue cases annually. He also commanded Group-Air Station Humboldt Bay, in northern California, between 1998 and the summer of 2000.

He was promoted to the rank of Captain during a year of strategic studies at the Air War College (2000-2001), which included training on terrorism, intelligence and overseas travel to Israel and Syria. He has had two major commands and most recently served as the Chief of Governmental Affairs and Public Affairs for the Admiral of First Coast Guard District, which oversees the northeast portion of the United States. The area of responsibility includes eight States from Maine to New Jersey.

As the United States Representative for the Tenth District of Massachusetts for the last twelve years, I have had the opportunity to work with and get to know Robert Durfey both as a professional and as a man. He has lived his life with a concern for others and the safety of our country. Robert Durfey is a gifted individual whose interpersonal skills are unsurpassed and who commands the respect of his subordinates and peers. As he retires from the United States Coast Guard, I want to add my best wishes to the chorus of accolades he has already received. I salute him and may God bless him in all his future endeavors.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6344.

This is an extremely important bipartisan measure that combines sound judicial policy with rational patent law and good public health policy. The bill is aptly named Responsive Government Act because through its provisions, Congress provides the judicial and executive branches with commonsense flexibility to ease certain administrative requirements which would otherwise result in undue hardship for diligent and well- intentioned individuals and entities.

The House has previously passed this proposal in either identical or similar language, and I should note under a suspension of the rules; however, the other body has failed to act in a timely manner, but I understand now the other body is prepared to proceed expeditiously.

Let me describe the measure.

Sections 2 and 3 provide the Federal courts and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, respectively, with needed emergency authority to toll or delay judicial proceedings or statutory deadlines in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation which makes it impractical for parties, including the United States, to comply with certain filing conditions or, to the extent deemed necessary, to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster.

We recently all too often have observed how the ravages of natural disasters disrupt the lives of our fellow citizens, which can impede the ability to comply with strict statutory deadlines. Thus the Responsive Government Act provides critical flexibility to the courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by these emergency situations.

Finally, section 4 provides the PTO Director with the discretion to accept an application for a patent term extension filed not later than 3 days after the expiration of the 60-day period in title XXXV of the U.S. Code, provided the Director determines that the delay in filing the application was unintentional.

This provision corrects an anomaly in the patent law and provides the PTO with the discretion to excuse minor filing errors, discretion it already has in most circumstances. As the PTO has testified to Congress in the past, it would bring this provision of law in line with over 30 other patent laws and regulations. It would prevent the inappropriate sacrifice of valuable earned patent rights. More importantly, this adjustment would promote important clinical research that can benefit the lives of seriously ill patients. This provision has the support of leading medical researchers and practitioners across the Nation.

It addresses a particular section of the Hatch-Waxman Act that provides a patent holder with up to 5 years of restored patent protection for time lost while awaiting FDA approval. This extra time is critical because for many highly innovative medicines, as research continues even after the drugs have been approved and released to market for a particular use. Many of these medicines have additional, potentially lifesaving uses that would not be discovered without further research, which is made possible by the years of patent protection beyond the drug's initial release.

I note the presence here of our friend the delegate from the Virgin Islands, who I am sure will speak to this measure, but I would commend to all of our colleagues a review of her commentary that appeared some time ago describing one drug in particular and what it means for medical research and for practicing physicians such as herself.

By removing the unnecessary barriers to medical research, section 4 of this act will promote research into modern, safer, and more effective medicines, saving lives and reducing burdening costs to our health care system.

In closing, I want to commend Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, and our distinguished Chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Mr. Berman, for their outstanding work in preparing the Responsive Government Act of 2008, and urge that my colleagues approve this helpful and necessary measure.

Would the chairman yield?

I thank the Chair. It's seldom that my dear friend from California errs, but I would point out that the 41 million acres that the Chair of the committee alluded to is actually 41 million acres under water. According to the latest statistics, that represents some 80 percent of the proven reserves that are available in terms of offshore waters.

So I don't know where the gentleman gets his statistics, but I would think after we pass this Responsive Government Act, that we could sit down and work out some legislation that would rescind those leases that are currently being banked by leaseholders and the consequences of which are reducing the supply of oil and gas so that as the demand increases, naturally the price explodes.

We cannot afford to have given away our natural resources to major oil companies and have them sit on it and do absolutely nothing, because the gentleman is right, and he well knows it, that the American people are hurting.

There is legislation I know that the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, Congressman Markey, has either filed or is preparing to file, and I am sure that he would welcome my good friend the former Attorney General of California to be an original cosponsor.