Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, our current tax system has spiraled out of control. Today's tax code is unfair, discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. There is no part of the tax code that demonstrates this more than the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT is a nefarious policy enacted to prevent a small number of wealthy taxpayers from using legitimate deductions to reduce their taxes, and thus taxing them at a higher rate. However, the AMT was never indexed to inflation, and without reform, it threatens to ensnarl middle class taxpayers.

When the AMT was first created, it affected fewer than 20,000 taxpayers. Today it affects 4.2 million, and this number could rise. Without action by Congress, 20 million more taxpayers would be forced to pay on average $3,000 more in taxes, this year alone. In my district this egregious tax would engulf more than 55,000 taxpayers.

Congress must find a permanent solution to this offensive tax; in fact, a solution is long overdue. However, what we are presented with today is not a permanent solution or even a solution. This ill- conceived legislation puts in place permanent tax increases, on some of the driving forces of our economy, to pay for a temporary patch to the

Madam Speaker, on April 16, 2007, the tranquil campus of Virginia Tech, and the Town of Blacksburg, was shattered by the actions of a lone gunman. The

horror that the Virginia Tech community has experienced is something that every parent, every American, hopes they never have to learn has affected their families and friends.

Although this horrendous and unspeakable violence showed the worst of mankind, it also showed what those of us who have been a part of the Virginia Tech community for years have always known . . . the students, the instructors, the administrators, and the citizens of Blacksburg care deeply for one another and take great pride in their community. Even in the worst circumstances, the Virginia Tech community showed great compassion for their fellow man and did what they could to help each other. Liviu Librescu, a survivor of the Holocaust, blocked the doorway of his classroom so that his students could climb out the windows to safety. Ryan Clark, a Resident Advisor in the West Ambler Johnston Hall, rushed into the hallway to help his fellow students when the first attack came, and became the second victim. And I was deeply saddened to learn that one of my constituents, Henry Lee--a graduate of William Fleming High School in Roanoke--was among those who died in the attack on Norris Hall.

In the days and months following this tragedy, the Virginia Tech Community and Hokie Nation saw an outpouring of love and support from people around the country. The university saw donations come in excess of $7 million as people sought to give aid to those affected. As time went on, the university had to decide how to use the money donated as a result of this horrific act, and the university made a wise and selfless choice. They decided that the best way to disburse this money was to put it in the hands of those who experienced and lost the most as a result of this unspeakable violence. So, last month Virginia Tech distributed the money to 79 families or individuals. These are the families that have lost the most, and have experienced emotional trauma that no one should ever have to experience. This money, given by people across the Nation, is a small way to help those directly affected by this horrendous act. The families can determine the best uses for these contributions. Some already have decided to endow memorial scholarships at Virginia Tech or elsewhere. Some simply have bills to pay.

While the university has acted graciously to help the families, we have discovered that there is a new problem the families are facing, this time by the Federal Government. It has become apparent that the funds these families received will become significantly reduced because of taxes. Funds some families desperately need to pay medical bills, funeral costs, and to simply rebuild their lives. The last thing these families need to worry about is an additional tax burden. And I guarantee that those who gave so generously want their money going to help those directly affected, not paying taxes. I do not believe that these funds should be taxed or that it is Congress's intent that they should be taxed.

In 2001, Congress passed P.L. 107-143. In this bill there is a provision that makes qualified disaster payments exempt from taxes. There is no doubt that this was in fact a disaster--ask any member of the Virginia Tech Community, Hokie Nation, or a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and to them it unequivocally was. In fact, the Governor of Virginia declared so that day. Despite this well intentioned law, that Congress passed to make tax-exempt payments from qualified disasters, the families and the university have all been told it is likely these funds will be taxed. It was not the intention of the Congress that disaster payments should be taxed, and I am proud to join Mr. Boucher in introducing legislation that will seek to have these funds, like those resulting from any other disaster, tax-exempt.

The tragedy at Virginia Tech will never leave our minds, but we in Congress have an opportunity to help rebuild this community. I ask all Members of Congress to join us in supporting this legislation. Let us help the families and those so personally affected as they seek to rebuild their lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the majority's plan to combine two unrelated appropriations bills, the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and Department of Education and the funding for Veterans and Military Construction.

I oppose this combined approach because, in doing so, the Democrat majority is using political maneuvering to avoid tough spending choices in the controversial Labor-HHS and Education bill.

I hope we all agree that we need to keep our commitment to veterans by supporting veterans benefits and military construction provisions. But the majority should not use the popularity of veterans funding to build a legislative Christmas tree by including labor and health spending at $10 billion above the President's request.

No one is fooled by this craven manipulation of benefits for our Nation's veterans. Let's debate these bills individually, rather than holding funding for veterans military care and military facilities hostage with a controversial bill.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue, as well as that of the two gentlewomen from California, Congresswoman Eshoo and Congresswoman Lofgren, who have been advocates of a permanent extension of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House leadership has now seen fit to schedule a vote on a bill to extend the Internet tax moratorium for longer than the mere 4-year extension contained in the House-passed bill.

However, I'm still extremely disappointed that the majority did not allow any amendments to H.R. 3678 when it was considered by the full House. The handling of that bill 2 weeks ago by the House leadership is unfortunately reflective of the stranglehold that leadership has placed on the will of the majority in this Congress.

I had introduced legislation, along with Representative Eshoo, to make the ban on Internet access taxes permanent, and that legislation had garnered nearly 240 bipartisan cosponsors before the House was forced to vote on the 4-year extension. These cosponsors represent a strong bipartisan majority of the Members of this body. However, with absolutely no explanation, the majority party cut off all opportunity for amendments to that legislation on the House floor, where I have no doubt an amendment to make the ban on access taxes on the Internet permanent would have passed with a very strong majority.

During committee consideration, the House Judiciary Committee even resorted to obscure procedural tactics to reverse a vote for an amendment in committee to extend the moratorium from 4 years to 8 years. Because all but one Democrat, Congresswoman Lofgren, on the committee voted against an amendment I offered there to extend the moratorium for 6 years, I assume that to be consistent they will vote against the 7-year extension before us today, but we shall see.

With regard to the merits of a 4-year extension, we heard arguments that the Senate would not accept anything longer than a 4-year extension. However, that has proven not to be the case. Now, House leadership has been forced to schedule a vote on a bill to extend the moratorium for 7 years because the current moratorium expires tomorrow. It's a shame they did not do this, and more, voluntarily when they had the chance.

Instead, the Senate, and I, too, join in commending Senator Wyden and Senator Sununu in the bipartisan effort that was made in the Senate, which passed a more reasonable bill with a longer term of protection for American taxpayers.

The bill before us today extends the moratorium for almost twice as long as

the House-passed bill, and while I would prefer a permanent ban, this is a vast improvement over current law. This bill will continue to help ensure that the digital divide does not grow between those who can and cannot afford broadband Internet access.

The bill will also help ensure that businesses have more certainty when making business decisions about whether to deploy broadband to areas they do not currently serve, such as rural areas across the country.

I urge the Members of this body to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the deplorable situation in Darfur has united the world in outrage over the atrocities being committed there. Through the efforts of motivated individuals and advocacy groups, the situation in Darfur has been brought to the forefront of public consciousness.

These people have worked tirelessly in raising awareness about the situation in Darfur and calling for an end to the genocide. Around the country, throughout Virginia and across the 6th District of Virginia, I have seen first hand the dedication and commitment of these individuals in calling on leaders, from around the world, to speak out against the horrendous events in Darfur. In fact, it was often their humanitarianism and commitment to peace in Darfur that encouraged nations to speak out against what was happening in Sudan and take action.

It is no surprise to me that the citizens of the United States have taken such an active role in condemning the actions taking place in Sudan. After all as a Nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, the United States and its citizens have a responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated, whether at home or abroad. The work of these groups is a true testament to the values of our country.

The goodwill of these individuals and groups in raising global awareness is instrumental in helping to end the genocide in Darfur. I am glad that we in Congress have risen today to commend these groups and thank them for their service. We thank all the various local schools, communities, faith-based, human rights, humanitarian, and youth-led advocacy organizations that have dedicated their time and energy to help end the genocide in Darfur, to promote peace there, and to defend human rights. We must continue to work together and do more to bring an end to the genocide in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I had the opportunity to travel as part of a bipartisan Congressional Delegation to the war- torn nation of Sudan and see first-hand one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent times.

The entire world is currently watching in horror the atrocities being committed in Darfur. Many people have been called to action to try to stop this genocide. This includes hordes of humanitarian workers and peacekeeping forces. The most prominent peacekeeping mission in Sudan has been the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), which is carried out by African Union (AU) forces.

Since July of 2004, AU forces have been on the ground in Sudan working as peacekeepers. Sadly, their peacekeeping mission has made these AU personnel targets for attack by rebel forces. The worst of these attacks occurred in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, on September 29, 2007. This attack on the AU base left 10 brutally murdered and 50 soldiers missing. In the aftermath of the attacks Haskanita has been burned to the ground, displacing 15,000 citizens. This horrendous situation is made only worse by the government of Sudan's silence in not speaking out and condemning these attacks.

There is no doubt that this was an atrocious attack, and today we in Congress join together to condemn all these attacks. These attacks show just how horrid the situation in Darfur is, when those trying to bring peace and stability are themselves victims of violence. We in Congress express our deepest sympathy to the families of individuals killed or missing in these cowardly attacks.

It is my deepest hope that the Darfur peace negotiations currently underway in Libya bring about a meaningful and lasting peace agreement for Darfur. The United States and the international community must work together to stabilize the situation in Darfur and prevent further genocide. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to bring an end to this international crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment which represents an agreement just referenced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Boucher, and myself regarding some of the concerns with regard to H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act. And I'd like to thank Congressman Boucher and congratulate him for his hard work on this legislation over a number of years, and thank him for working with me to address some of these important issues.

H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act, creates over 40,000 acres of wilderness, wilderness study, and potential wilderness and over 11,000 acres of national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest in southwest Virginia.

Mr. Boucher and I share the Jefferson National Forest between our districts. Although this bill affects only national forest land within Mr. Boucher's district, any change in how the forest is managed will impact my district.

My amendment addresses three areas. First, it modifies the boundary of the Brush Mountain East Wilderness Area, removing 26 acres containing a power line which is not consistent with wilderness qualities.

Second, the amendment changes the boundaries of the Seng Mountain National Scenic Area, removing 1,263 acres from the area to allow continued use of the Barton Gap Motorized Trail and to allow for wildlife habitat management.

Finally, the amendment changes the trail language for the Raccoon Branch Area, allowing the Forest Service more flexibility when building the trail.

While I'm pleased to offer this amendment, it does not resolve all the concerns I have with the bill. The fact still remains that this bill ignores the recommendations of the professional land managers working in the Jefferson National Forest by designating 15,000 additional wilderness acres not recommended in the forest plan.

When the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1011 earlier this month, several witnesses highlighted serious concerns with these additional wilderness areas. These experts noted forest health and wildfire risks, increased recreation conflicts, lack of suitability as wilderness and wildlife management needs.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why Congress mandated that each national forest create a forest plan. Forest plans help the land management agencies find a balance among all the conflicting interests in national forests and factor in the latest science and cite specific qualities unique to each forest. Professional land managers then use this information to chart a path for managing each forest for the coming years.

The Jefferson Forest Plan, finalized in 2004, was developed over a 12-year period and involved countless scientists, land managers, interest groups and interested citizens. Throughout the process, the Forest Service held over 100 technical meetings and received over 15,000 public comments.

This local approach is what Congress intended when it established the national forests. Instead of resisting this localized process, H.R. 1011 tells the professional land managers and the public participants that the forest plan is not important. It says that no matter how much discussion and compromise goes on at the local level, or how good the science is, Congress knows best how to manage the national forest.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the best way to manage the Nation's public forests. And that's why I have worked with my colleague, Mr. Boucher, to try to rectify these concerns. Until this bill is more reflective of the local perspectives and expert opinions in the forest plan, I will continue to have concerns with H.R. 1011.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, however, because I do think that the gentleman has been very forthcoming in working with us and hearing our concerns. And I hope that that will continue as this process moves forward, and I would hope that the chairman of the Resources Committee would work with us as well to continue to address concerns that we have as the bill moves through the other body.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his hard work on this legislation, for his willingness to work with me in addressing these concerns. I wish more had been addressed, but I thank him for where he has come.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this overall issue and on what could have been, had the Congress been allowed to work its will. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when a majority of those, in fact, I think almost everybody, who come down here to speak on this issue are going to say, I also supported a permanent ban on access taxes to the Internet, and that is why it is sad that we are not able to bring this legislation forward under a rule under general order.

This is inappropriate to take the product of a committee when in the process, a majority of the members of that committee had cosponsored the alternative, a significant majority of the House had cosponsored the alternative of a permanent ban on taxes on the Internet, that if such a vote were brought here on the floor of the House I don't think there is any doubt on the part of anybody here that it would pass overwhelmingly.

In fact, that is exactly what has happened every other time this legislation has been brought to the floor of the House. We have voted for a permanent ban on access taxes on the Internet. That is the appropriate thing to do if we want to see the Internet continue to grow and to continue to reach out to more and more Americans, where instead we find ourselves falling further and further behind more and more other countries in terms of the numbers of Americans and the percentage of Americans who have high-speed broadband access to the Internet.

One of the reasons for that is that there needs to be greater investment in this technology to roll it out, to bring it to more people's homes, to make it

more affordable. As long as the potential for taxes on the Internet remains strong, as long as the potential for consumers to see on their Internet access bills the same kind of charges that they see today on their telephone bills and on their cable bills, where tax after tax after tax adds up to, in some instances, 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent of the cost of getting access to some of these technologies, obviously impacting lower income people. But, no, we weren't given the opportunity to do that. We weren't given the opportunity to have, on the floor of this House, what the vast majority of the Members of the House have indicated they want to have.

Sure, the time is running out. This bill should have been brought up months ago so that we would have adequate opportunity to work with the Senate on this legislation. In fact, every indication is that the Senate would agree to an extension greater than the 4 years provided in this legislation. But, no, instead of leaving the House with the same position we did the last time this came before the Congress in the 108th Congress when we passed a permanent extension, instead of having a strong vote showing that kind of support, we are back-pedaling. We are retrenching. We are coming forward with a much weaker position and not going in the right direction if we truly intend to see the kind of investment that needs to be made in making sure that families of all income levels have access to the Internet.

The Internet Tax Fairness Act of 1998 created the moratorium on Internet access taxes and discriminatory taxes on e-commerce. Seeing that the growth of the Internet was an important thing, we have maintained that moratorium on taxes, but also seeing at the same time the percentage of American families who are able to access high-speed Internet services, broadband services, declined, or not grow as fast as a host of other countries in many parts of the world, is a very discouraging thing.

That is why there has been a continued impetus for a permanent ban. The ban has been temporarily extended, but it will expire in just 2 weeks. This legislation that is before the House today will pass and will get that extension. But we will not be doing the things that we need to be doing to make sure that the Internet remains permanently free of access taxes and has that kind of encouragement to consumers and to investors to know that those investments will not be curtailed by a loss of interest in the growth of uptake of the Internet access by those who would like to impose taxes on it.

State and local governments have shown a great appetite for doing that. In fact, some had done it even before we put the original ban in place, and they have been grandfathered in under the legislation that moved forward. The proposal that we had would have phased out that grandfathering after 4 years. In fact, after the permanent ban was defeated in the committee, I offered an amendment that would have extended it for 8 years, but only a 4-year extension of the grandfather clauses, so that those States that were dependent upon these taxes could phase them out over 4 years and we would then have a longer period of time for which investors would see an opportunity to see greater investment opportunities in the rollout of high-speed broadband services to more Americans.

That actually passed in the committee the first time by a vote of 20- 18. Then without any explanation for why a member would change their vote, nonetheless, a vote was changed and that was then defeated, and we wound up with what we have on the floor with us today.

The Congress, the will of this House, is clear. Over 240 bipartisan Members have cosponsored legislation to make the ban permanent. At every turn, the Democratic majority has worked unusually hard to suppress the clear will of the actual majority of Members of the House, including nearly 100 Members on their side of the aisle who have cosponsored legislation to make a permanent ban of Internet access charges.

Despite the clear will of the House, and despite the requests that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), our ranking member, referred to a letter requesting that this be brought up under regular order, the leadership of the House refused to bring a permanent extension to the floor. No Members were allowed to offer amendments on the floor. Why? Because clearly if anyone had been allowed to offer an amendment to make the ban permanent, it would have passed by an overwhelming margin. It would have supplanted the legislation that we are having here on the floor today.

So no subcommittee markup was held on this legislation. The House Judiciary Committee resorted to rare procedural maneuvers to reverse the vote to double the length of the tax moratorium which I offered, and party politics have trumped good policy in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Our Nation's low-income families and the technology sector deserve better, and they are big losers today. The permanent ban and the rationale for it is important for people to understand. The temporary fix before us does little to bridge the digital divide, the divide between those who can easily afford high-speed Internet access service and those who cannot. It is estimated that only 11 percent of U.S. households with incomes less than $30,000 a year have high-speed Internet service, as opposed to 61 percent of households with incomes over $100,000. Why is that? Well, in part, it is because there has not been sufficient buildout of Internet access in communities where there are lower incomes, and in part it is because of the concern that once this ban expires, this moratorium expires, significant taxes will be imposed that will discourage lower-income families from maintaining their service on the Internet or from acquiring it in the first place.

A permanent ban would guarantee that the price of Internet access will not be raised due to excessive taxation, and a permanent ban would create certainty for broadband providers and those who have to make the multibillion dollar capital investment to make sure that the United States not only catches up, but retakes its place as the world leader in technology, not just in developing the technology, but making sure that American businesses, large and small, and American families, rich and poor, have access to this technology.

It is a shame that we are not having an opportunity to cast that vote today, which is the clear will of the majority of this House.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and I rise today to commend the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center on its 90th anniversary, and, in doing so, express my respect for the resolution's sponsor, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Congresswoman Davis worked tirelessly to fight for the constituents of the First District of Virginia. This resolution was the last measure that she introduced in this body before she passed on just 10 days ago on October 6. I see it as only fitting that we pass it in a timely manner to honor this research center and our late colleague.

Since its inception as the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in 1917, the focus of research at this facility has significantly changed, yet this research center remains on the forefront of scientific advances. These advances not only benefit the larger scientific community but have also played a crucial role in our national security and daily lives.

The men and women of the Langley Research Center have made countless contributions to the scientific community and our aeronautic and space programs in particular. From its crucial role in advancing flight as early as the First World War to the training for operation of the lunar module of the Apollo program, which subsequently transported the first and only human life to the surface of the Moon, this facility has been responsible for numerous scientific breakthroughs for an astonishing 9 decades.

Aeronautics played a critical role in the First and Second World Wars, providing our military with a strategic advantage that contributed to our victories in these two major global struggles. Subsequent advances in this field and the field of aeronautics provided the United States with the ability to achieve superiority in space exploration. These efforts have been crucial to our national defense and continue to play a major role in combating terrorism.

The Langley Research Center is also responsible for sending the first orbiters and landers to the planet Mars through the Viking program, and is also currently engaged in development of the next generation of spacecraft essential to maintaining our leading role in space exploration.

I urge my colleagues to join me in commending this facility's contributions to the scientific world and the security of our country, and in doing so, honor our late colleague, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis.

Madam Speaker, last month we marked the sixth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks against America. The terrorists responsible carefully selected their targets; the World Trade Center standing for America's success, and the Pentagon for America's strong defense. These extremists sought to bring down the greatest democracy in the history of the world. They thought we were weak--or unprepared to defend our freedom. They were wrong. The terrorists soon discovered America is not comprised of buildings; America is made up of her people. We are strong. We stand together against those who seek to destroy us.

And so it is with great sorrow but immense pride that I recognize one of my own constituents who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. Private First Class (PFC) Thomas R. Wilson, United States Army, was killed on August 27, 2007, while proudly serving his country in Afghanistan as part of the 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

PFC Wilson, who was only 21 years old at the time of his death, grew up in Maurertown located in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. He was a typical all-American boy. He loved being outdoors enjoying nature. His hobbies included hunting, fishing and hiking and he possessed a great love of art and photography. He was an active member of the 4-H and local chapter of Future Farmers of America (FFA). In high school PFC Wilson excelled in the classroom and on the athletic field. He was a member of the National Honor Society in addition to playing on Central High School's basketball and track teams. In 2004, he graduated from high school, where he is remembered by teachers and friends as ``a student leader at all times.''

After graduation, PFC Wilson went on to West Virginia University where he completed two years before joining the U.S. Army. Upon his completion of boot camp and airborne school, PFC Wilson was sent to Camp Ederly, in Vicenza, Italy and from there was deployed to Afghanistan.

PFC Wilson was a proud soldier. In e-mails he sent home from the war zone, he shared his commitment to the mission and his pride in the U.S. Army. According to his commanding officer, PFC Wilson's fearless actions on the day of his death saved the lives of many of his fellow soldiers. PFC Wilson has been posthumously awarded the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, and the Purple Heart for these noble actions.

We extend our deepest sympathies to Julie Hepner, PFC Wilson's mother, and his siblings, Chloe, Chelsea and Ethan. Not only did Tom answer the call of his country and in doing so protect the freedoms that we so cherish, but he also paid a dear price to bring freedom to people he had never met. He gave his life in order to make our Nation stronger and safer for future generations.

In 1962, speaking to a gathering of cadets at West Point General Douglas MacArthur delivered stirring remarks in which he described the ``American man at arms.'' He said, ``His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man.''

In an age when the word `hero' is tossed around casually to describe everything from sports stars to singers in bands, PFC Thomas R. Wilson is a hero in the truest sense of the word--a possessor of courage and strength who pursued feats of noble purpose.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the committee, for his leadership in bringing this resolution before the Congress again, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden, for his involvement in this as well.

The resolution, also known as 25x'25, recognizes the importance of agriculture in meeting our energy needs and sets a noble goal for American agriculture: to produce 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States from the renewable resources of our agriculture, forestry and working lands by the year 2025.

We have made significant progress in developing a robust industry using agricultural crops as well as animal waste to produce ethanol and biodiesel. In 2006 alone, the renewable fuels industry added more than 1.05 billion gallons of new ethanol to the marketplace. It is projected that without any new technological breakthroughs, the industry already has the potential to produce more than 11 billion gallons per year within the next decade.

While the domestic production of energy has been exciting, there are still many renewable energy sources yet to be explored and developed. There are a wide variety of agricultural products and by-products that can be converted to clean, renewable energy sources. In fact, there are sources of renewable energy in every one of our 50 States, including wind, solar, hydropower and biomass. The development of cellulosic technology has enormous potential to bolster the renewable fuel market inside the corn belt and well beyond.

I am particularly excited about the opportunity to use forest biomass as a component of our renewable energy supply. Forest biomass is plentiful and available in many States. Almost two-thirds of the Commonwealth of Virginia is forested, as is much of the southeastern United States. In fact, today we have roughly the same amount of forest land as we had 100 years ago. Trees are an abundant resource and are available for conversion into both wood products and biofuels year- round.

Every year we grow almost twice as much forest biomass as we harvest.

This wood and wood waste has the potential to produce enough electricity to power 43 million households, or enough ethanol to increase our domestic supply by almost 10-fold. As we find more ways to use forest biomass in our energy supply, we also have the opportunity to improve forest health, removing materials that fuel wildfires and insect and disease infestations.

Renewable energy development can create valuable markets for many of the waste materials which are currently a burden on America's farmers, such as animal waste, harvest by-products and damaged crops. Farmers continue to face steep environmental regulations in handling animal waste, and converting this waste into renewable fuels is a win-win for farmers and the environment. In fact, I would like to see the word ``waste'' taken out of American agriculture since almost everything produced on our farms can be used or reused for some other purpose.

The current tax credits and renewable fuels standard, along with the phaseout of MTBE, has helped fuel investment in new ethanol and biodiesel plants, and created more markets for agriculture products. It is obvious that current policies have successfully established a thriving, renewable fuels market. We should now focus on policy that will develop commercial cellulosic ethanol and allow new markets to drive production.

New proposed initiatives are extremely ambitious and can only be achieved with contributions from all areas of the agriculture sector, including grains, plants, trees and wood waste, vegetable oil, and animal fat and waste.

The 2002 farm bill included the first-ever energy title with programs to help renewable fuel producers purchase and expand operations and purchase feedstocks and also established programs to make grants and loans to farmers, ranchers and small businesses to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements on farming operations.

The energy title of the House's 2007 farm bill builds on the 2002 bill by providing nearly $3 billion to promote the commercial production of cellulosic ethanol. These initiatives will help farmers and forest owners by creating new markets and income opportunities to keep them on the land and keep their land working. At the same time, greater focus on cellulosic feedstocks can reduce our reliance on corn for renewable fuels.

Increased development of renewable energy opens new markets for our Nation's producer; provides consumers with a safe, sustainable, environmentally friendly and renewable source of energy; and decreases our Nation's dependency on foreign oil.

25x'25 is a vision we can all get behind, as 600 groups already have, including agriculture and forestry groups, as well as business and environmental organizations. Over 20 of our Nation's Governors, along with 72 bipartisan cosponsors in the House, have recognized that this is a goal, though challenging, that is worth striving for.

I encourage my colleagues to join us in recognizing the important role American agriculture plays in domestic energy production and work with us to turn the goal of 25x'25 into a reality.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott, for leading this tribute to a great and courageous woman, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis.

I had the opportunity first to meet Jo Ann Davis when she was a member of the Virginia General Assembly. She showed there the same courage, determination and hard work that she has shown here during her service in the United States Congress. Right through to her final week here, she was still working for the people of the First Congressional District of Virginia. She was very proud of her representation of those great people and often talked about her district as being America's First Congressional District because it contained Jamestown and Yorktown and Williamsburg, and worked very hard for the past year or more as we prepared for this year's celebration of the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown.

She also was a member of three very important committees here in the Congress, the Armed Services Committee, the International Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee, all very much related to our Nation's national security and working with other countries around the world in our war against terror and was very, very dedicated to our Armed Services, the men and women who served there and our veterans. She stood up for them time and time again.

When I arrived at my office today, I found in my in-box a copy of a bill that she introduced just last Tuesday, October 2. It may well be the last bill that she introduced in the Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 222, cosponsored by myself and all the other Members on both sides of the aisle, commending the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center in her district, on the celebration of its 90th anniversary later this month.

I can think of no better tribute to Congresswoman Davis and to the men and women of the NASA Langley Research Center, the premier aeronautic space and research facility in the country. I would commend to the Speaker and to the chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology where this bill has been referred to pass it, not only in tribute to those great workers at that great facility, but also a tribute to a great Member of Congress, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, who worked in this body in a very bipartisan spirit.

Every month the Virginia congressional delegation meets, both the Senators and the House Members, the Republicans and the Democrats, in a bipartisan fashion. We talk about the issues that we are dealing with here in the Congress, particularly those that have a great impact on the Commonwealth of Virginia.

She was an active and vocal participant in all of those discussions looking after the interests of Virginia and her congressional district. But she also loved to get away from here to her home in Gloucester, to her horses, to her family, her wonderful husband, Chuck, her children and grandchildren, where she was when she passed on at the end of last week.

We will all miss her. Our hearts go out to her family, to her constituents. It is my hope that we will all take heart from this brave and courageous woman to her last days serving the people of her district with distinction and courage and great honor and determination.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from Illinois for their assistance with this legislation, as well as Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Tom Davis, all of whom have been a great help in moving this legislation forward.

I rise in support of H.R. 1664, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Authorization Act, which will authorize grants from the National Archives for the establishment of a Presidential library to provide educational and interpretive service to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson.

As a statesman, scholar and President, Woodrow Wilson faced economic crisis, democratic decay and a world war. Presidential historians agree that World War I and President Wilson's leadership radically altered the role of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy, a policy that established a new path for America's role in promoting democracies throughout the world. So, too, did Wilson's high-minded ideals craft a legacy that shaped the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch in times of war.

Mr. Speaker, as a professor and president of Princeton University, Wilson created a more selective and accountable system for higher education. By instituting curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the world. Due to Wilson's legacy at Princeton, I am pleased to have the support of current Princeton President Shirley Tilghman as we establish this library.

H.R. 1664 gives the National Archives the authority to make pass- through grants for the establishment of the Presidential library in Stanton, Virginia, Woodrow Wilson's birthplace, and does not create a new program. In addition, to ensure that this is a public-private partnership, this legislation mandates that no grant shall be available for the establishment of this library until a private entity has raised at least twice the amount to be allocated by the Archives. Quite frankly, more Federal public-private programs should operate in this manner.

Finally, and to ensure that the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library is not part of the Presidential Library System, this legislation states that the Federal Government shall have no role or responsibility for the operation of the library.

I am also pleased to have the support of several other presidential sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, known as the birthplace of Presidents, including Monticello, Poplar Forest, Montpelier, Ash Lawn, and Mount Vernon.

Mr. Speaker, in order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life, principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the United States, I ask that you join me in supporting this legislation. I want to thank House leadership for scheduling this bill today. The cosponsors include the entire Virginia delegation. I am also grateful to the staff of the Government Reform Committee and the Office of Legislative Counsel for their assistance in crafting this bill.

As a reminder to my colleagues, this legislation is identical to a bill the House passed by a voice vote in the 109th Congress but was not considered in the Senate. At this time, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H. Res. 79 and applaud this body for recognizing the collaborative efforts of hunters, sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat inspectors and hunger relief associations to establish Hunters for the Hungry programs across the

Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us represents the efforts of several constituent organizations working with the administration and the Congress to reach consensus.

Among the organizations who worked to produce this proposal were the Natural Resources Defense Council, Crop Life America and the Consumer Specialty Products Association. I appreciate their hard work and their willingness to set aside past differences to develop a fair and balanced funding mechanism for the EPA pesticide registration program that satisfies the needs of government, industry and the environment.

As Chairman Cardoza pointed out, this legislation renews the successful program established in 2004 to fund the pesticide registration program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The original legislation had many successes including providing stable funding for the EPA, predictable timelines for industry, new products for consumers, and the necessary funding for the EPA to complete the tolerance reassessment process mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. While the 2004 legislation doesn't expire until next year, the realities of Federal budgetary pressure and the resulting uncertainty regarding the adequacy of appropriations make immediate action on this reauthorization legislation critical.

S. 1983 reauthorizes the existing pesticide registration program with several enhancements aimed toward clarifying what is covered and which activities the fees can be used to support, while protecting funding for certain environmental grant programs.

Again, I want to commend the groups whose efforts were instrumental in producing this legislation. I also want to commend Chairman Peterson and Subcommittee Chairman Cardoza and urge all Members to join us in supporting this legislation.

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

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