Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, those recreating in Idaho, whether residents or tourists, will likely head to lands encompassed by this bill. More than 2 million acres in Idaho alone will be affected, which will in turn affect many of the uses enjoyed in Idaho, four wheelers and off- highway motorbikes, hunting, boating, and shooting. All of that today is at risk because of the legislation before us.

But more than just recreation is threatened by the bill. Federally managed public lands, treasured by so many, are in jeopardy of being cut off except to those who have the health and the strength to hike or perhaps to mountain bike.

My 84-year-old mother can only walk with a walker but still enjoys the outdoors. Mr. Chairman, look at that smile. I think everyone wishes that their mother could have that kind of enjoyment. With activities including off-highway vehicle use threatened under this bill, my mother and others like her will have no meaningful way to enjoy these lands. The same is true of people with disabilities. Today we are telling those individuals that these 2 million acres in Idaho and 26 million acres across the West will not be accessible to them and will only be available to a small segment of our society with very narrow uses.

Public lands should be available for everyone, including the elderly and people with disabilities, not just a select few. We can and must do better.

Madam Speaker, atop a hill on Woodley Road in northwest Washington, DC is a 26-room mansion known as the Twin Oaks estate, which served as the official residence of nine ambassadors from the Republic of China between 1937 and 1978. During its heyday, the Twin Oaks estate welcomed to its 17.6-acre compound countless American dignitaries and friends in the local Chinese community, to meet with ROC ambassadors and representatives and chart a course of friendship and cooperation between our two nations. Among the more prominent guests to visit the estate were U.S. Secretaries of State, Senators and Congressmen and U.S. military leaders including General Dwight D. Eisenhower and General George Marshall. Distinguished visitors from Taiwan to the estate included Madame Chiang Kai-shek and the future Republic of China Presidents: Mr. Chiang Ching-kuo, Mr. Lee Teng-hui and Mr. Chen Shui-bian.

The Twin Oaks estate also played a role in the termination of official ties between the United States and the Republic of China, Taiwan, in the winter of 1978. During those uncertain days and weeks, ownership of the Twin Oaks estate was transferred to an American private organization; later returning to the ownership of the Taiwan government in 1982. Since then, the Twin Oaks estate has again become a popular spot in Washington, DC, hosting many social functions each year, at which Washingtonians continue to admire the estate's gorgeous peony gardens, its Georgian Revival architecture, and its priceless Ch'ing dynasty antiques.

The Twin Oaks estate was built in 1888 by the family of Mr. Gardiner Greene Hubbard, founder of the National Geographic Society. In celebrating this historic site's 120 year history we also celebrate the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, which protects the Republic of China's legal ownership of the estate. May the Twin Oaks estate remain a symbol of United States-Taiwan friendship in our Nation's Capital for the next 120 years.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, firefighting is a high-risk, high-consequence activity, and the agencies that are involved in managing wildland-urban interface have always had strong firefighter safety and training programs. Firefighter safety is their highest priority. In fact, the 1995 Federal Fire Policy sets the order of priorities for wildland firefighters as, number one, public and firefighter safety; number two, protection of resources; number three, protection of property.

The safety, health, and welfare of firefighters and the general public are becoming increasingly linked to the decline in the health of forested ecosystems. The most effective means of reducing burgeoning fire suppression costs, protecting community values, restoring forest and grassland health, and improving firefighter safety is an aggressive fuel treatment program. How land managers apply the fuels reduction program will have the greatest impact on the safety of wildland firefighters.

Threats to human life are compounded by the fact that more and more people are living in homes near fire-prone forests, placing themselves and the firefighters who try to protect them at greater risk.

My amendment allows the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration to develop and distribute information on the importance of clearing biomass from Federal lands. This commonsense amendment requires USFA to work in consultation with other Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM to ensure that USFA provides the best possible recommendation. As we come upon what many are predicting to be another deadly and costly fire season, this information will be as vital as ever. We must provide our Federal employees, who are the best in the world, all the tools they need to keep our communities and themselves safe from catastrophic wildfires.

The Federal hazardous fuels reduction program can be a very good thing for wildfire fighters. If it is done properly, the program can reduce the most extreme of the hazardous fuels and make the working environment for wildland firefighters much safer.

The Federal Government has invested millions of dollars in a hazardous fuels reduction program to mitigate the risks, costs, and consequences of wildfire across millions of acres of publicly owned wildlands. The knowledge gained as to relative effectiveness of different types of treatments and the overall effectiveness of those treatments will have much greater value for protecting and promoting firefighter safety when that information is shared. The United States Fire Administration should be an important vehicle for disseminating this information, and this amendment will help to make that a reality.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, this is intended to promote sharing of information. It doesn't have anything actually to do with the actual clearing of the biomass. It just deals with the information that's gained, and it would be in the wildland-urban interface for the results of that fuels treatment.

I yield.

That's the purpose of this amendment too.

I believe that that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, LCpl Jered Campbell.

Lance Corporal Campbell recently returned from Haditha, Iraq, where he served a 7-month deployment. He was assigned to Company ``E'' of the Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment of the United States Marine Corps.

The city of Haditha saw unprecedented improvements where Lance Corporal Campbell's Company E served. Upon arrival, Haditha was considered one of the most dangerous regions in Iraq. By the end of Lance Corporal Campbell's deployment, the police force was rapidly growing, attacks on Iraqi police and Marine patrols were steadily decreasing, and relations with the Iraqi people were improving.

Madam Speaker, please join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Campbell, whose selfless actions benefit all Americans. Our Nation owes Lance Corporal Campbell and his fellow Marines a great debt of gratitude for their service.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to commemorate National Sanctity of Human Life Day. This year marks the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, that landmark decision that so drastically altered the landscape.

This month also bears a sad distinction. In January 2008, we passed the tragic mark of 50 million lives that have been lost to abortion since Roe vs. Wade. We cannot help but wonder about the implications of this astonishing statistic. We are all concerned about the shortage of workers in our country. So many of those unborn lives lost due to Roe v. Wade would now be in the workforce.

What about Social Security? Could we not better sustain the vitality of the program if these same workers were paying into the system? These are matters of demographics and economics, yes, but ultimately they are about the most profound issue of all, the simple but indispensable sanctity of human life.

In this very room, from the view of the distinguished Speaker, the center of relief that looks over all of us is an image of Moses, the lawgiver. In the 90th Psalm, Moses wrote ``Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom . . . May your deeds be shown to your servants, your splendor to their children.''

How many of our children will never be able to number their days because their days will never begin? How many will never know God's splendor in the life He wants for each of us, because they never have been allowed to see the light of day?

As the father of six and the grandfather of six, five of whom have been born and one who remains unborn, yes, a grandfather of six, I have watched the breathtaking miracle of life unfold again and again. Every time I see a small child, I am reminded of the wondrous blessings of a creator who allows us to share in the miracle of creation.

In the words of the poet William Wordsworth, ``Heaven lies about us in our infancy.'' It is essential for all of us to remember that in any abortion there are two victims, the mother and the unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do a better job of communicating to women in crisis what public and private resources are available to help them, to reach out more vigilantly to these women with a tenderness and a practical compassion our country has shown so often to so many.

I applaud the selfless unsung sacrifices of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who care for women with crisis pregnancies and to provide spiritual, emotional and material support for them.

It is fitting that we recall the words of our Declaration of Independence, that our creator has endowed all with certain unalienable rights, the first of which is life. The little one in the womb is a person with value independent of his or her mother and deserves the right to that life.

As Members of Congress, we are uniquely positioned to protect the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society, the unborn. If we cannot protect the most innocent and helpless among us, how can we proclaim that we want to provide justice and protection for anyone else?

May those of us who believe in the uniqueness of human personhood, from conception to death, today again resolve never to cease our efforts to make our beloved country not only a beacon of hope but a sanctuary of human dignity. Surely there can be no higher calling for us as public servants of this blessed land.

Mr. Speaker, in just a few days the Research and Development Tax Credit expires. Sadly, this will not be the first time Congress allowed this to happen. The world of business has its own challenges without adding the stressful uncertainty on whether the R&D tax credit will be available next year. A permanent extension of the R&D tax credit can go miles in advancing our competitive edge in the global economy.

Manufacturers, small companies, and any firm that does research relies on the R&D tax credit. Businesses must constantly meet changing consumer demands and do so by offering products and services, which makes R&D essential. Companies benefit from a R&D tax credit by improving their products and services. Congress has needlessly placed hardship and unnecessary risk on industries by not making this tax credit a reliable and predictable part of their business calculus.

We missed an opportunity to change that. When the House reconvenes, let us make the R&D tax credit permanent.

Madam Speaker, at the end of this month, a vitally important

research and development tax credit is due to expire again.

Since 1981, Congress has erratically extended this tax credit, and extensions have ranged from 6 years to 5 months. Sometimes extensions have applied retroactively. The tax credit even lapsed for a year. A permanent R&D tax credit is long overdue, and Congress should act now to make a permanent R&D tax credit a reality.

Congress was right to offer an R&D tax credit. Doing so boosted America's competitive edge in an increasingly cut-throat global marketplace of ideas, products, and services. Yet we ignore, to our economic peril, the fact that other countries, including Australia, Canada, China, France and India, also offer tremendous R&D incentives to their industries.

Now is the time to make R&D tax credits permanent. Doing so would remove an unnecessary burden on our industries, including roughly 35,000 Idahoans employed in high-tech jobs.

Madam Speaker, there is no reason for keeping this kind of tax credit temporary. Let us unleash the power of American ingenuity and make the R&D tax credit permanent.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in joining President George W. Bush in honoring the University of Idaho's Lionel Hampton International Jazz Festival. President Bush presented the National Medal of Arts award to University of Idaho President Timothy P. White in a White House ceremony yesterday.

The University of Idaho, located in Moscow, Idaho, is the first public university to receive this award since it was created by Congress in 1984. The award honors one of the Nation's premier jazz festivals, named in honor of the late, great jazz musician Lionel Hampton. I should note that the University of Idaho holds a special place in my heart, as I attended the university's law school, graduating in the class of 1984.

As described by the University of Idaho, ``The festival began in 1967 and grew in presence and prestige through the decades. In 1985, the festival was renamed the Lionel Hampton/Chevron Festival in Mr. Hampton's honor and was rededicated as the Lionel Hampton International Jazz Festival in 2006. Mr. Hampton died in 2002 at the age of 94.''

Lionel Hampton's vision of providing opportunities for professional musicians to mentor young, aspiring jazz artists has made the festival a remarkable success. A festival that began as a 1-day event has now evolved into a 4-day event that includes four concerts by professional jazz musicians, three student concerts and student performances that take place in 20 different locations on the campus and throughout the community. The festival also hosts a series of workshops.

This year's attendance included approximately 10,000 students from more than 300 schools, in addition to teachers, parents and local jazz enthusiasts. The festival has drawn leading jazz artists from around the world, including current director and six-time Grammy-nominated artist John Clayton, the late queen of jazz, Ella Fitzgerald, legendary trumpeter Dizzy Gillespie and renowned jazz innovator Bobby McFerrin, among many others. The festival will celebrate its 41st anniversary February 20-23 of next year. I urge all my colleagues to join me in congratulating University President White, Festival Director Clayton, and former festival director Lynn ``Doc'' Skinner in accepting this tremendous honor on behalf of the University of Idaho.

Madam Speaker, as we approach Veterans Day, it would seem that the funding for the men and women who have served our country faithfully should be a no-brainer; yet, under a new majority of this Congress, the President has yet to send a single appropriations bill, including funding for our veterans.

We shouldn't be on our floor asking that the funds for our veterans be considered on their own merits. That should just be the way that it's done. It is inexcusable to tie funding for our veterans with a Labor-HHS appropriations bill which can best be described as wasteful.

This Congress has drifted far from the priorities of the American people. We should never play politics with funding for veterans services. On Veterans Day, it is fitting that we remember the sacrifices of the brave men and women in uniform and their families and their loved ones.

Our country was founded by courageous patriots. It is sustained by the same kind of people today. Our veterans have done their duty to their country, and it's time that we do ours by providing them with the benefits they are owed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the greatest, most influential book known to man, the Holy Bible. November 18 through 25 is National Bible Week, and it fittingly coincides with Thanksgiving.

The Bible teaches us that we have very much to be thankful for. And although we ought to remind one another of this truth at all times, I am glad there is a time set aside for remembering our blessings.

The Holy Bible teaches that we are all created by God in His image. And as such, each individual has a certain dignity that should be respected. One John 4:7-11 is one of my favorite passages of scripture. It says: Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed His love among us: He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

Elsewhere, in Matthew 16:24, Jesus tells his disciples that if anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. I particularly like this verse because, coupled with the first passage from 1 John, it reminds me that I am to love God first, others second and myself third. How different would our personal interactions be if we took this to heart and sought to love others in the way that the Bible encourages us to?

It is a lesson worth learning, to love one another. In a city that oftentimes seems so bitterly divided, glimpses of true peace and genuine care seem so rare.

Holy Scripture, which served as guiding light for so many of our Founding Fathers, can also illuminate a path for us today. In spite of all of our differences, there are many things that we have in common: we have a common creator, a common desire to serve our country and a common inherent worth by virtue of being creations of the Almighty. As we go about our daily business, I think it would behoove us to remember that the Good Book teaches to love one another because we have been loved by God.

In all of the many chapters of my life, the Bible has served as a source of great wisdom, comfort and insight. Whether as a husband, a child, a father, a lawyer, or legislator, I have purposed to rely on the word of God to give direction in times of doubt. I applaud the efforts of my friends here in the people's House and around the country to recognize what is truly a treasure. I hope and pray that each Member of

this House, their staff and all of our fellow citizens take time in the upcoming weeks to not only reflect on the great truth found in the Bible, but also to count our blessings and to give thanks.

On a personal note, I am quite sure that my third grade teacher, Mrs. McClain, prayed for my salvation when I was young. I believe my seventh grade reading teacher, Mrs. Cantrell, prayed for me, as did my high school band teacher, Mr. Jim Henry. They joined a long list of relatives, my sister, Annette; my brother, Joe; my great, great grandfather, John Henry Fortson, pastor of the Fishing Creek Baptist Church in Washington, Georgia, for over 40 years. He prayed for the salvation of his children and grandchildren to seven generations.

I reconfirm tonight that their prayers were fruitful. Jesus is my friend and I am a student of his word, the Bible. I understand His work on the cross as the sole means of my salvation because the Bible has taught me so.

Yes, Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tell me so. May all those who prayed for me so diligently reflect in Thanksgiving this year that God has heard their prayers for me, and I will thank the God of the Bible for their prayers which resulted in my salvation according to the plan that He set out in the Bible.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us.

Plain and simple, this bill is bad for America because it is bad policy. My concern centers around the long-lasting impacts that this bill will have on the First District of Idaho and on America's future.

The bill imposes a royalty that will threaten the existence of domestic mineral production. Please note that mining is already one of the most regulated industries in the United States. Everyone believes that we need safe, productive, and environmentally responsible mineral development and that there needs to be a logical and efficient way to deal with abandoned mines. We all agree on those goals. But this bill takes an environmental cause, like abandoned mines, and uses it as a cover for a tax hike that will accomplish nothing less than outsourcing our domestic mining industry. That is bad policy.

Hardrock mining is dangerous. It takes a lot of grit to engage in it. Today, hardworking professionals do it here in the United States. This bill, however, will send American production overseas, where there are limited or no environmental standards and where child labor is used.

As the gentleman from Kentucky before me mentioned, H.R. 2262 makes America more dependent on child miners from around the world for our minerals and metal needs. The International Labor Organization estimates there are over 1 million children that are working in mines and quarries around the world. This bill will not only ship our mining industry jobs overseas; it will ensure that American mineral needs are satisfied by child labor. That is just plain wrong; it is bad policy.

My colleagues across the aisle have made a commitment to the American people to combat global warming. This bill will ensure that they cannot meet that commitment. How are they going to combat global warming if they do not have the very minerals that they need to do it? Alternative energy is dependent on minerals that we mine here in the U.S. For instance, copper is used for wind, solar power, and fuel cells, just to name a few items. Currently, domestic production cannot meet domestic demand. This is kind of like having the Democrats promise us sand castles but banning domestic sand. They're cutting off the domestic supply of minerals that they need to deliver on their commitment to fight global warming. Once again, H.R. 2262 is bad policy.

Mining industry jobs are important in the First District in Idaho. H.R. 2262 will outsource these good-paying jobs that America and Idaho needs. H.R. 2262 will take these jobs away from hardworking American professionals and force them on child laborers. Once again, H.R. 2262 is bad policy.

My final point is this: our national defense depends on minerals mined in America. This bill will result in an importation of the very minerals we need to keep America safe from every unfriendly country from which we are protecting ourselves. Yes, that is right, we'll be asking our enemies to supply

us with the minerals used for the very weapons we will be using to defend ourselves from them. Once again, H.R. 2262 is bad policy.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, global competition is a fundamental reality of today's economy. America is doing well because we offer the highest quality products in the world. Only by staying on the leading edge of technology and innovation will our competitive edge stay sharp. Our competitive advantage will diminish unless our companies have the ability to perform research and develop the technology improvements that keep America out front. That is why we need a permanent R&D tax credit.

One recent study found that R&D credit teases out nearly $3 of additional R&D investment for every $1 of taxes companies can deduct. In addition, it has been estimated that more than three-quarters of R&D tax credit dollars are used for the compensation of employees who work in U.S.-based research and development.

In my home State of Idaho, roughly 35,000 people are employed in the high-tech industry. The companies where they work depend on the best possible research and development. It is hard for firms to plan for future growth when a key tax credit is destined to expire at the end of the year.

Madam Speaker, it is time to make the R&D tax credit permanent.

Madam Speaker, for the third time this Congress, the House of Representatives

is again addressing the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. For the third time, this House is considering a bill that would move millions of children away from private health insurance into government-run health care, substantially raise taxes, and dramatically increase federal spending.

Recently the President vetoed an SCHIP bill precisely because of these concerns. Yet here we are today with a bill that is remarkably similar. I am afraid that this Congress is not serious in addressing America's health care challenges, particularly health care for America's children. The majority purports that this bill is ``for the children.'' That phrase--``for the children''--is used like a club by our friends across the aisle whenever they want to pass bad bills. If we really care about children, we won't pass legislation that takes a giant step toward government-run health care.

That said, Madam Speaker, I am interested in more than this bill's title or good intentions. The success or failure of all legislation must be judged not by its intentions, but how it will affect real people, real families.

Madam Speaker, this bill is not the right policy for our children. Government health care is the most expensive and least efficient health care you can get. And that's exactly what this bill will produce. The Congressional Budget Office states that 2 million people actually will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program.

This bill explodes funding for SCHIP above current law by $35.4 billion over 5 years and $71.5 billion over 10 years. The majority claims to fund this by raising taxes on tobacco products, yet the irony is that 22 million more smokers will be needed in just the next 5 years to fund the SCHIP bill we're considering.

Let me get this straight: We want healthy children and cancerous adults. I'm pretty new here in Congress, but even for a new kid on the Congressional block that doesn't seem to add up.

This bill is not about poor children. The bill defines the poverty level to qualify for SCHIP at 300 percent, which is around $62,000 for a family of four. That's $16,000 more than the median income in my home state.

Additionally, loopholes will allow states to define this poverty level and employ ``income disregards,'' thereby allowing families with even higher incomes to qualify for this expensive program.

Ostensibly ``for the children,'' this bill actually would increase the number of adults on SCHIP. The CBO projects that over 700,000 adults may be enrolled in SCHIP in FY2012. Shouldn't we be working to move people off of government health care and into private-sector care that works much better? We say we're for personal responsibility, free markets and red tape, yet this bill would create dependency, bigger government and more bureaucracy.

Finally, this bill substantially weakens the citizenship requirements to qualify for SCHIP, inviting fraud and abuse of this program by illegal aliens. The CBO projects that this fiscal disaster could cost the taxpayer around $3.7 billion in increased federal spending over the next 10 years.

This bill also changes the period of time a state has to spend its SCHIP allotment from 3 years to 2 years. This will significantly increase the strain on state budgets.

This proposal is not about good intentions, soothing sentiments, or warm feelings. It's about real people, real taxpayers, and real, quality, affordable and accessible health care. It fails miserably in every category.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this fatally flawed bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a spending problem. The budget passed earlier this year anticipates spending $2.9 trillion over the next 12 months. That is more money than the total value of all goods and services produced in Germany at $2.87 trillion, China at $2.52 trillion, or the United Kingdom at $2.34 trillion.

This spending problem is further evidenced by a whopping $9 trillion national debt, a debt that can only be addressed by drastic change. Those changes will only come as Congress prioritizes and makes tough decisions, funding priorities and cutting wasteful spending.

Safety is an important issue. No one argues that point. But spending taxpayer money to rename a 40-year-old agency is just plain ridiculous, and yet, that is one of the things that this bill proposes to do.

The Federal Railroad Administration was created in 1966. Today's bill proposes to change the name of the agency to insert the word ``safety'' renaming it the Federal Railroad Safety Administration. While this sounds innocuous enough, it raises some very practical considerations for spending the American taxpayers' money.

The Federal Railroad Administration has 837 employees. Printing new business cards for everyone to reflect their new agency, at a cost of $30 per person, will cost taxpayers more than $25,000.

Consider also that the agency has eight regional offices across the country, all of which will require new signs to reflect the new agency name. Again, this raises questions: How much taxpayer money will the agency spend for these new signs?

How much taxpayer money will the agency spend to print new letterhead to reflect this name change, an agency that spent nearly $200,000 in printing costs last year?

How much taxpayer money will the agency spend issuing new regulations that reflect this new name?

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this. While all of these expenses are relatively modest in light of the $1.11 billion proposed to be authorized by this bill over 4 years, this kind of spending is unnecessary and, frankly, ridiculous.

If the point of this bill is safety, then why not spend the money on safety? Don't spend the hard-earned money of American families and individuals just to rename an agency. That type of spending is an out and out waste of taxpayer money.

Yes, Congress has a spending problem. The only way Congress will cure that problem is to prioritize, make tough decisions and learn, like everyone else, how to live within a budget.

Let us spend money on the priorities that serve the American people best. Let us save this kind of name-changing, sign-adjusting business until a day that we have extra money and no deficit.

I urge my colleagues to vote against needless spending, and please join me in voting for this motion to recommit.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

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

H.R. 2467 honors the life of Frank J. Guarini in naming a post office for him in his hometown of Jersey City, New Jersey. Frank J. Guarini, a former Congressman and prominent public figure, has dedicated his life to serving his country and community.

He was born in 1924 in Jersey City, New Jersey. His sense of civic duty and honor began at an early age, and as a young man, he was commissioned as a Navy officer at Columbia University. From there, he went on to serve in the U.S. Navy aboard the USS Mount McKinley.

After his military career ended, he was elected to the New Jersey State Senate where he served for the following seven years. In 1979, he won election to serve in the House of Representatives, where he completed seven terms before retiring in 1993.

On his return to private life, he has been active in his community and supports the library of New Jersey City University, which has been named in his honor. He is the chairman of the National Italian American Foundation, and through it, he created the Frank J. Guarini public policy forums. The forums feature local and national government leaders discussing issues such as public policy, international economy, trade and foreign affairs.

I support H.R. 2467 in the naming of the post office in Jersey City, New Jersey, for Frank J. Guarini.

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

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