Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for language in H.R. 3 which would permit states to exempt certain hybrid vehicles from high occupancy vehicle regulations.

The legislation provides that alternative fuel vehicles as well as vehicles that achieve a highway fuel economy rating of 45 miles per gallon or greater may be exempted from HOV requirements through September 29, 2009.

I would like to insert into the record a memo prepared at my request by the Congressional Research Service which analyzes the HOV provisions of H.R. 3 with respect to the treatment of hybrid vehicles.

It is important to note that based on my conversations with the authors of this legislation as well as this memo, the language of H.R. 3 would permit states the flexibility regulate when and where hybrid vehicles would be exempt from HOV regulations within the state.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that the States have the flexibility to regulate the hybrid use of HOV lanes within their state--both in terms of where hybrids will be permitted in HOV lanes and when they may be permitted. The language in H.R. 3 seems to achieve this purpose.

Congressional Research Service,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2005.

Hon. Brad Sherman.

Hybrid Vehicle Access to HOV Lanes Under H.R. 3

As you requested, this memorandum provides an analysis of

the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) provisions in the

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (H.R. 3), as

reported in the House. Specifically, you asked about the

treatment of hybrid vehicles in H.R. 3.

Section 1208 of the bill adds a new Section 168 to Title 23

of the United States Code. Section 18(b)(4) would allow--but

not require--states to exempt ``low emission and energy

efficient vehicles'' from HOV requirements through September

29, 2009. The bill does not specifically address hybrid

vehicles: instead, the bill provides that alternative fuel

vehicles as well as vehicles that achieve a highway fuel

economy rating of 45 miles per gallon or greater may be

exempted. Eligible vehicles must also meet the new Tier 2

light vehicle emissions standards, and must be certified by

the Environmental Protection Agency. It should be noted that

a state must actively establish a program to exempt

vehicles--the exemption is not automatic.

Further, you asked whether states would have the authority

to exempt vehicles from specific HOV lanes at specific times,

or whether the state would be required to exempt vehicles

from all HOV lanes. The section on vehicle exemptions states

that ``the State agency may allow vehicles certified as low

emission and energy-efficient vehicles . . . to use the HOV

facility . . .'' In this and several other subsections, the

bill refers to an ``HOV facility'' in the singular. The

Federal Highway Administration treats every separate section

of highway as a separate ``HOV facility.'' For example, in

Virginia the HOV lanes outside of the Capital Beltway in

Interstate 66, the lanes inside of the beltway on I-66, and

the lanes on I-95/I-395 are all treated as separate

facilities. The restrictions on time and minimum occupancy

differ for all three facilities. Because of these

distinctions, it appears that states could choose to exempt

vehicles from one facility (i.e. highway) and not another.

What is less clear is whether states could designate

specific lanes (within a facility) and times. The bill

requires states to ``establishes procedures for enforcing the

restrictions on the use of the facility by such vehicles.''

This would seem to grant the state latitude in determining

when and where low emission and energy efficient vehicles

could be exempted from the HOV restrictions. However,

allowing compliant vehicles exemptions at some times but not

others--or in some lanes but not others--would add a level of

complexity to the enforcement of HOV restrictions. It

therefore seems an open question whether states would choose

to exempt compliant vehicles from restrictions on all state

HOV facilities, or on specific facilities without specifying

which lanes could be used or at what time.

It should be noted that H.R. 3, as introduced, would have

required states to charge tolls for all vehicles exempted

from the HOV restrictions. The version as reported allows

such tolls, but does not require them. It should also be

noted that states would be required to limit or discontinue

the exemptions, if they were found to decrease traffic flow

along the HOV lanes.

Sincerely,

Brad Yacobucci,

Specialist in Energy Policy Resources,

Sciences and Industry Division.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember my colleague and friend, Bob Matsui. Both California and America have lost a respected leader and more importantly, a good man who was committed to his constituents, his family and his nation.

Bob was a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly on the behalf of his constituents. He always fought for America's children, to create economic justice, and to protect Social Security. His work, accomplishments, and life are an inspiration to all Americans.

I have been honored to serve with and know Bob. Even in a partisan. and closely divided Congress, Bob always brought civility and intellect to policy debates. He was an example for all who seek to advance the best public policy.

I know that his colleagues and his constituents will not soon forget Bob--his untimely passing leaves an emptiness in everyone who knew and loved him.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join with me in sending our sincerest condolences to his family. I hope that his wife, Doris, and his family can find peace in this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Congressman John Conyers, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, in introducing the Conyers-Sherman Presidential Eligibility Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment will allow any foreign-born person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years or longer to qualify to run for President of the United States. Once enacted and ratified, this amendment will allow millions of well qualified Americans to aspire to our nation's highest office.

This bill is not about the election prospects of any one man or woman. It is about the dreams of all Americans. Every year I visit high schools in the San Fernando Valley. I tell those students that America is a great country, a land of opportunity. I want to tell them that it is also a country where any child can grow up to be President of the United States. Unfortunately, for many high school students in my district, the fact that they were born in another country is a complete and unequivocal bar to the Presidency.

All American children regardless of where they are born should have all the rights and responsibilities of native born Americans. All American children should be able to aspire to rise as far as their talent, energy and ability allow them, including our nation's highest office. There is no good reason to exclude Americans who will grow up to attend our colleges and universities, who will protect America in our armed forces, or who will work hard and pay their taxes, from our nation's highest office. When this Constitutional Amendment is passed and ratified each of them will have that opportunity.

The exact reasons for including the natural born citizen language in the Constitution are lost to history. The meticulous record of the Constitutional Convention, kept by James Madison, hardly gives it a mention. Regardless of that lost reasoning, America is now a nation of immigrants. We are a nation that should encourage those who come here to aspire to their highest goals and loftiest dreams. Mr. Speaker, the Constitutional Amendment Mr. Conyers and I introduce today will make some of those dreams a possible reality for the first time in our history.

Mr. Speaker, first, on the choice issue, I want to commend those other speakers who have stood here and pointed out how this bill will lead to the death of women who are suffering from partial miscarriages and will lead to the partial death of our federalist system as we deny States the right to protect women in their own hospitals.

Three process issues. Frist, we never debated VA-HUD on this floor. Offering amendments to appropriations bills is about the most significant thing rank-and-file Members get to do on this floor, and it illustrates the total irrelevancy of the rank-and-file of both sides when we take that important function away and nobody seems to care. It is all about leadership. And as to VA-HUD, we were not even given the right to pass amendments that could be stripped out in conference.

Second, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) pointed out, we were not given a chance to read this bill. Why are we not given 3 days to read it and then we can vote on it? Why? Because we want all of Thanksgiving week off; not just 2 days, the whole week. Hey, we are going to get 2 months off because we do not want to do our work. We do not want to read that boring bill. We are going to go home without reading it, but we want to rubber stamp it first.

Finally, and both parties deserve criticism over decades on this one, fiscal management. There is no corporation or major institution in this country that does not decide on its annual budget a month or two before the fiscal year begins. Do my colleagues think General Motors waits until February to figure out its budget? We should have done this bill in August.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we need to raise the debt limit this week. I vote against S. 2986 not for the purpose of causing the United States to default, but rather for the purpose of forcing a serious debate on fiscal policy.

I am confident that if this motion were to be defeated, Congress would in effect go into emergency session to deal with the fiscal issues that are before us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Father Spencer T. Kezios for his leadership and service to the community. The San Fernando Valley, and indeed the entire world community, is truly fortunate to benefit from his unyielding dedication to promoting education, religious tolerance, and peace. Father Kezios has consistently demonstrated

selfless devotion to his countrymen and his faith for over forty years at the Parish of Saint Nicholas in Northridge, California.

In his years of service, Father Kezios has been at the forefront of many community service organizations and efforts. Under Father Kezios's guidance, the Parish of Saint Nicholas has grown from a mission parish to a community institution offering spiritual and community-based services for over 1,200 families. Father Kezios founded the Saint Nicholas Parochial School in 1977, and over time oversaw the expansion of the school which now boasts an enrollment of almost 400 students. He was also one of the three original incorporators of the Guadalupe Home for Boys and he established the first two Greek Orthodox senior citizens housing developments in the Archdiocese. He was also assigned as Chaplain for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Father Kezios had the foresight to bring several liturgical services to the English speaking community. In 1994, he translated the complete Orthros services from Greek into contemporary English and made it available for wide publication. He continues to provide liturgical translation of these texts for English speaking congregations through the Narthex Press.

Some of Father Kezios's greatest achievements were attained by educating and influencing local and international communities on issues of global importance, such as religious and cultural tolerance. Archbishop Iakovos tapped Father Kezios to assist with the efforts of the Greek Orthodox Church in Albania shortly after the fall of communism in that country. Here in the United States, and at the direction of Archbishop Iakovos, Father Kezios also produced a series of five educational films, including ``A Boy Named Panatiotis,'' which exposed the American public to the hardship and suffering of the people of Cyprus after the Turkish invasion. He also produced and directed a Cyprian cultural program of music and dance that toured the United States, donating all net proceeds from these performances to refugees from Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Father Spencer T. Kezios for dedicating his life to spreading knowledge and compassion. He is an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Richard Grossman for his devoted efforts to improving the lives of burn victims in the San Fernando Valley and the Nation.

Dr. Grossman is an ally to firefighters, children, and those who have sustained burn injuries. He brings hope, comfort, and life into situations where they might otherwise seem nonexistent.

Dr. Grossman is board certified in both general surgery and plastic surgery. He holds membership in numerous societies, including the American Burn Association, the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the California Medical Association, the San Fernando Valley Surgical Society, and the International Society for Burn Victims. He has been president of the Los Angeles Society of Plastic Surgeons. He has been also associated with a number of other organizations including the Foundation for Burn Research, the Los Angeles Society of Plastic Surgeons, the National Coalition of Burn Center Hospitals, the American College of Hyperbaric Medicine, and the Alisa Ann Ruch Foundation. In addition, he serves as Director of the Grossman Burn Center, Director of the Grossman Burn Unit, and Director of Research-Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy.

His past involvement with the California Health Care Commission and a Judicial Nomination Evaluation Commission to the State Bar Association demonstrates Dr. Grossman's commitment to civic duty. In 1994, he was named Honorary Fire Chief for the City of Los Angeles, and was inducted into the California Department of Firefighters' Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Grossman is a compassionate and sympathetic man, which is evident through his work with San Fernando Valley firefighters. His expert care of burn-injured firefighters is indispensable. He is actively involved in developing training programs for the care of burn injuries. Please join me in recognizing Dr. Richard Grossman, a distinguished physician who has made it possible for many burn victims to triumph over their injuries. His dedication and expertise provide comfort and life to many.

Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Carter amendment and the Green amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. I certainly understand why my colleagues introduced these amendments. Their intention was to make us safer.

However, the amendments are not drafted well enough and their operation relies on particularly vague underlying statutory definitions and agency decisions. In addition, the purpose of each amendment can be achieved under present law in virtually every case.

In particular, these amendments rely upon the definition of terrorist act and terrorist organization. One would have to have overwhelming faith, perhaps even blind faith, in current and future administrations to believe that these amendments will be immune from misuse.

I have seen the State Department place or remove organizations on the terrorist list, influenced, at least in substantial part, by diplomatic, political, and even trade considerations.

The Carter amendment essentially attempts to create a felony murder rule for terrorist offenses. If a defendant is part of a conspiracy to commit a felony, and someone dies in commission of that felony, the harshest penalties are applied, even if the conspiracy did not envision anybody dying. I support felony murder rules, particularly those applied to violent terrorist conspiracies. Unfortunately, this amendment, in the hands of unwise or politically motivated prosecutors, could be used to seek the death penalty for those involved in a Sierra Club protest at federal facilities, if there was some tragic and perhaps unforeseeable action.

I am confident that the Judiciary Committee will work on these matters in the weeks and months ahead and design legislation to bring us the safety-enhancing objectives of the foregoing amendments, without raising the same concerns.

Mr. Speaker, now Bremer has told us what went wrong in Iraq and why. He said we did not have enough troops and, specifically, we did not have enough troops in the days immediately following the fall of Saddam. This led to violence and looting immediately after that fall and created the sense of lawlessness which is killing our troops today.

The question is, why did we not have enough troops?

We had a plan worked out by our superb military not only to bring 200,000 troops from the south, but to bring 60,000 from the north, the Fourth Infantry Division, et cetera. When the Turkish parliament refused to let those 60,000 troops through Turkey, the President could have gone to the U.N. and got the U.N. resolution the Turkish parliament required. He could have delayed the invasion until those troops could be positioned in the south. He did neither. He was too impatient, too foolhardy with the lives of the Americans. He threw away the plan, threw away the northern half of the plan and moved on with the southern half of the plan.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder so many of us who voted to empower the President are so disappointed in how he used that power.

Mr. Speaker, during the presidential debate, both candidates agreed that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands were the greatest threat to America. President Bush described his policy by saying we have sanctioned Iran; we cannot sanction them anymore. What an incredible falsehood.

This Congress last decade passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which prevents any oil company investing in Iranian oil infrastructure from doing business in the United States. Yet the President has refused to apply this law. He gave a wink, a nod and a consent to a consortium of Japanese oil companies, revealed in the financial press, which allowed them to go forward with $2 billion of investments in Iranian oil fields.

The State Department wrote to me and said that we will continue to import nonenergy items from Iran. We will continue to do business with Iran because we want them to do business with us.

Who is Iran doing business with? Halliburton, doing business with Iran through its foreign subsidiaries.

So when the President says we have already sanctioned Iran, we cannot sanction them anymore, what he really means is, we are going to continue to do business with Iran and we want them to do business with Halliburton.

Madam Speaker, this is bad procedure to adopt bad tax policy. I want to get parochial and address my fellow southern Californians. This bill shafts southern California.

Take a look at Roll Call. ``Studios Take a Hit in the Tax Bill.'' The article explains how America's number-one exporter, how the underpinning of our southern California economy, gets shafted in this bill. It quotes Mr. Foley by saying, ``I am sure it is not entirely based on the fact that the motion picture industry hired Dan Glickman.'' Well, it is substantially based on that.

The article goes on to say that the bill neglects our number-one exporter, even though it is supposed to be an export-promotion bill, because of the hiring of Glickman. It quotes a lobbyist as saying, ``No Republican will fight for the movie industry.''

My fellow southern Californians, prove them wrong. Vote against the martial law rule, vote against the rule and vote against the bill. This is not just a shafting of southern California; it is the entry of corruption into the congressional process. It is a corrupt shafting of southern California.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, please do not listen to this speech unless they are from California.

As Californians, we, of course, care that this bill will hurt America because it encourages the export of jobs and increases the federal deficit. But we care perhaps even more that it is the most anti- California tax bill in history. If one is from Texas and they pay sales tax, they can deduct that under this bill. But if they are from California, they pay a higher rate of sales tax, and under this bill, they get no deduction.

The bill contains some loophole plugs for corporations doing funny things overseas, but then it provides exemptions for four specific corporations, four Houston-based corporations.

Our kids are dying from tobacco. This bill contains $10 billion for tobacco farmers, and of course, not one penny of that is going to a Californian. But what we were supposed to get out of it is FDA regulation of tobacco to save some of our kids. Well, they stripped that out of the bill so the FDA will have no power to regulate tobacco, just $10 billion goes to the tobacco farmers.

This is an export promotion bill, or so it claims. California is the number one export State. The entertainment industry, based in our State, is the number one export industry. Surely, there must be something in it for California. And indeed, there is: $1 billion and more of tax increases on America's number one export industry, the entertainment industry. Why is that? Are the authors anti-California? Perhaps more, they are anti-Democrat. The Motion Picture Association hired a Democrat, Dan Glickman. In doing so, they failed to abide by the pay-to-play corrupt rules of tax lobbying. So this is a corrupt anti-California tax bill.

I invite my fellow Californians, 20 of them from the Republican side of the aisle, to come on down and vote for this bill and then go to the Republican club and root for the Cardinals against the Dodgers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David W. Fleming for his dedicated contributions to improving the economy, education, and health care for the residents of the San Fernando Valley. David Fleming, an attorney who has specialized in corporate law for over forty years, provides leadership which is instrumental to many organizations committed to improving the economic development of the San Fernando Valley.

Vital centers of economic activity benefit from David Fleming's hard work. He is the Chairman of the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley, an influential business and industry collective formed after the Northridge earthquake, which brings investors to the San Fernando Valley in order to grow and sustain the economic base and improve the quality of life for all Valley residents. He is also a director of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, an organization of 1,350 businesses, which helps small businesses grow and works for the prosperity for the Los Angeles region. Most recently, David Fleming completed a two year term as chairman of the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, the largest economic development organization in America.

David Fleming has worked to improve the region's infrastructure and to promote commercial development having served as the appointed Vice- chairman of the California Transportation Commission for three years, during which time he chaired the Public Transit Committee. Even the entertainment industry benefits from his expertise. He serves on the Board of the Technology Council of the Motion Picture and Television Industry.

David Fleming is an advocate for the future of San Fernando Valley children and the health of all Valley residents. He is a founding member and trustee of the Children's Planning Council of Los Angeles County, a unique collaboration of public and private sector leaders working hard to improve the integration, coordination, and accessibility of health and human services for children. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of Valley Presbyterian Hospital, the largest acute care hospital in the central San Fernando Valley. The 290-bed facility offers leading-edge technology and medical expertise in maternal and child health, cardiac care, orthopedics, and critical care services. Many Valley children benefit from free immunizations, health screenings, and seniors are able to receive free flu shots each fall at the hospital.

Local government also has benefited from David Fleming's knowledge and volunteerism. In 1997, he helped implement the city's charter reform movement. Two years later, the reform was overwhelmingly approved by voters, making it the first major city charter reform movement in 75 years. He also served on the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission for two years from 2001 to 2002.

David Fleming's strong work ethic has been acknowledged by many, including President George W. Bush. In 2003, President Bush appointed him to the prestigious James Madison Foundation in Washington D.C., where he serves as one of only two private citizens appointed to the foundation.

Throughout his career, David Fleming dedicated over 60,000 hours in leadership roles for various non-profit organizations. Many organizations have recognized and honored David Fleming for his wide range of civic contributions including the American Jewish Committee, the Valley Bar Association, the Anti-Defamation League, the University of California at Los Angeles, the Interfaith Council, the California Junior Chamber of Commerce and the Jewish National Fund, as well as the City and County of Los Angeles, the California State Legislature and three California Governors. He was also the 1991 recipient of the Fernando Award, an exclusive honor awarded to individuals who have exemplified leadership, volunteerism and dedication.

David Fleming is a philanthropist who gives not only his time, but along with his wife Jean, has contributed millions of dollars to many Southern California charities including key donations to Valley Presbyterian Hospital and the University of California at Los Angeles Law Library.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing David W. Fleming, an altruistic man who has devoted much of his life to improving the well- being of the citizens of the San Fernando Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a bill by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). It is co-sponsored by the majority leader, a bill which the President has indicated he looks upon favorably. It is to abolish the income tax and impose a ``23 percent sales tax on all Americans.''

First, I headed the largest sales tax agency in the world for 6 years, and I am going to tell you, you cannot administer a 23 percent sales tax. That is why Europe uses a value added tax.

Second, a 23 percent tax would not replace the revenue. It would leave our troops in the field without the supplies they need.

Third, imagine a billionaire decides to travel to luxury resorts in France for an entire year. His property is protected by the American Army, his person is protected, he enjoys all the joys of being an American citizen and pays absolutely zero in tax.

Now imagine a retired couple. They have paid tax on all the money they have made. They squirreled it away. They have invested in municipal bonds. This thing passes. The muni bonds drop in value. They are receiving this income, and they are paying 23 percent on their food, 23 percent on their health care, 23 percent on their pharmaceuticals. They can no longer afford food, so they are buying dog food, and they are paying 23 percent on that. This is an outrageous bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, the home of the greatest Republican President of the United States, for yielding me this time.

I hearken back to the Grand Old Party that gave us Teddy Roosevelt and reflect on how far that party has fallen in the area of consumer protection, to the point where we now have the most anticonsumer administration in the history of this country, an administration so dedicated to stripping away all protections for consumers, so dedicated to unbridled corporate power, that they would trample on other values they claim to hold dear, all in an effort to expose consumers to some of the worst practices in the home mortgage market.

The Grand Old Party claims to care about States' rights, and then they use the power of renegade regulators to strip away all State authority to protect consumers in home mortgage lending situations, when our land law and our mortgage law has traditionally been a matter of State jurisdiction. They claim to care about democracy, but instead of this major decision being made by the elected representatives of the people, it is made in the bowels of the bureaucracy.

The gentleman from Oklahoma correctly points out that the committee of jurisdiction should be focused on this, but instead, a party dedicated to corporate power does not deal with this in the Committee on Financial Services where the gentleman from Illinois and I both sit.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other value that is trampled on, and that is the value of fair market competition. Because what this OCC regulation does is it says that if you are a national bank, you do not have to abide by any of the State laws. But if you are one of one-half of the banks that is State chartered, well, then, you do. And frankly, some of those laws are rather Draconian. So it provides a very unfair advantage to one-half of the competitors, particularly the largest ones.

Finally, it creates a race to the bottom among bank regulators. Now, the national banks are exempt from consumer regulation, so what do the State regulators do if they want market share, if they want to stay in business, if they want to have any banks to regulate? The pressure is on them: Race to the bottom.

What we need instead is to get rid of this regulation, to return to a democratic process in which States can protect consumers and where, if we are going to have national standards, they are established by a Congress not looking to strip away all consumer protection but rather a Congress looking to provide a reasonable level of consumer protection and a reasonable level of access to credit.

It is time to rein in the renegade regulators. One would have thought that the folks on the other side of the aisle would be saying just that.