Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5919, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act. It is essential to reauthorize this program before it expires on October 1, 2008 and to implement the updates to this program included in the bill. As the Chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology, I understand the importance of this program to small businesses who want to turn their raw ideas into innovative solutions.

I want to thank Small Business Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot for their work on this legislation. I am continually impressed by the ability of the Small Business Committee to work in a bipartisan manner on legislation that benefits U.S. small businesses. Based on their track record, it is no surprise this bill passed the Small Business Full Committee by a vote of 22-0.

The SBIR Program provides grants to help small businesses through the critical initial stages of product development. The SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act will address national security priorities and economic development. It will also help in the development of life- saving medical technologies, therapies, and products.

Small Businesses are a primary source of innovation and they can keep us on the forefront of technological advances. I am pleased this bill includes language that will increase participation of small businesses from rural areas, and from minority- and women-owned businesses.

Increased participation will also increase competition. It is important to ensure that taxpayer money is being used to fund the best opportunities for advances in technology. Funding the research we're trying to create is a key objective of this program.

I am also pleased this bill increases the size of maximum awards for the SBIR Program. The current limits have not been raised in 16 years. The SBIR Program is a critical source of funding for early stage research and development and the awards need to be realistic for developments in science and technology.

The SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act will provide small businesses with the funding and guidance they need to succeed. These small businesses are a big part of the solution for helping us emerge from the difficult economic conditions we face today.

It will also ensure these businesses remain competitive in the global environment they must now compete in. We must give these businesses the support they need to grow. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 213 and 214, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Foster

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the recess have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and my hero, Mark Smith, and to congratulate Mark on his retirement as President of the Iowa Federation of Labor.

Over the past 34 years, Mark has been a fierce advocate for Iowa's working families. He started as an instructor at the University of Iowa Labor Center in 1974; was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the Iowa Fed in 1979, and served in that position until he was elected President of the Iowa Federation of Labor in 1997.

Mark has dedicated his life to the cause of working men and women in Iowa. Protecting the rights of workers has been a long and difficult struggle, and no one has given more time and energy to the cause than Mark Smith.

Mark is living proof that one person can make an enormous difference in the lives of thousands of individuals. Many of the people he helped never knew what he did for them and never had a chance to thank him personally. I stand here today on their behalf, because I want Mark to know that nameless people here are honoring his lifetime of heroic efforts. His lifetime of service leaves a legacy that challenges future generations of labor leaders to continue his efforts to further the cause of working families.

Mark may have retired from office, but he will never retire from his real passion, speaking out against injustice and pushing people to do more to take care of each other.

I'd like to thank my friend from Florida and also my friend from New York. We did have a very enlightening trip to Nogales, Arizona, and the Border Patrol and Customs agents that we spoke to were all, I think, doing a fantastic job of trying to deal with a very difficult situation.

But one of the things that trip emphasized to me is we often talk in this body about the cost of providing border security, the cost of providing national and international security.

And what we know is that the Pentagon traditionally publishes reports that provide this body that we serve in their estimate of the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we've seen those figures. We've viewed some of those figures with skepticism. And we've talked about what the published costs of this war are.

But what we don't talk enough about is what we talked about in repeated hearings in the wake of the Walter Reed fiasco. And I was fortunate enough to be serving on the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, when we had that first hearing out at Walter Reed. We talked to the highest ranking Army and Department of Defense medical officers. We had a follow-up hearing after the independent review group chaired by General Togo West presented its recommendations for the wounded warriors project. And I repeatedly pressed the top ranking Army medical officers on that very question; what are the hidden costs of the war that the American people aren't hearing about?

And I'm glad my friend from New York brought this up, because there is so much going on beneath the surface that the American public doesn't hear about.

If you take the average life expectancy of a 19-year-old male, which is representative of who we're sending to Iraq right now, you will find that under the published U.S. life tables, those young men have a life expectancy of approximately 55 years.

Now, when they come back in unprecedented percentages with life- threatening injuries that we will be responsible for caring for the rest of their lives, there is an enormous economic cost that we aren't hearing about. And so I look forward to the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues tonight what some of those hidden costs are, and what the American people need to be thinking about as we look at the overall economic impact, not just throughout our economy, but on the long-term burden we're placing on our children and our grandchildren to provide these deserving veterans with the best possible medical care that we can.

Before I get to that though, I want to talk a little bit about what we're giving up right now, through the amount of funding that we are committing every year to the conflict in Iraq because, just for Fiscal Year 2007, we know that this war is costing, under the most conservative estimate, $137.6 billion. So the American people may wonder, well, what would that actually provide if it wasn't going to Iraq?

Well, for 40 million people in this country, that would provide comprehensive health care. Now, think about that. We know that right now there are nearly 47 million Americans without health insurance. So that cost alone would almost completely eliminate that gap.

We know that that cost that we're spending this year in Iraq would hire 2.2 million elementary school teachers, provide affordable housing for over a million different housing units, and provide 142 million homes in this country with renewable electricity.

And to break that down into a smaller level, I represent the First District of Iowa. The taxpayers I represent in the First District have paid, to date,

$770 million in one congressional district alone, as their share of the cost of this war. What would that mean back in the First District of Iowa?

Well, it would hire almost 19,000 public safety officers. It would hire almost 17,000 music and art teachers. It would provide 126,000 full tuition university scholarships at public universities, and build 86 brand new elementary schools. So when we talk about the actual financial burden that we are facing every day because of the rising cost of this war, it is enormous.

And Congressman Klein, maybe you could talk a little bit about what you've heard from the people you represent in a different part of the country, where there are different needs, but also very similar problems that taxpayers you represent are facing.

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

One of the things that we face every year is something called an emergency supplemental, which is a request from the President for billions of dollars of additional funding to fund the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I would just ask my colleagues, and I'll pose this first to you, Mr. Hall. Where I come from in Iowa, an emergency is something that is unexpected and unanticipated that you can't plan for. But I am at a loss to understand why, after being in Iraq longer than we were engaged in the Civil War, after being in Iraq longer than we were engaged in World War II, we continue to face emergency supplemental funding requests for these wars, when the Department of Defense and the Pentagon and the President have to know how much they anticipate when they send their budget down for us to consider.

Well, as our good friend and colleague from Arkansas Marion Berry would say, That dog don't hunt. This is a classic example of what we've seen over and over and over again from procurement decisions that are being made that have an adverse effect on American taxpayers. And I think if you go back to the beginning when they set up the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, that it was set up with the intent of using Iraqi assets to rebuild the country and to shift the dependency from the government or from the United States back to the Iraqi people through the oil revenues that we're talking about.

And we've seen in committee hearings here photographs of Ford trucks full of pallets that had $250 million in cash per pallet that were part of a $2.1 billion one-day transfer of cash to the Iraqi government, the largest single transfer of cash in U.S. history. And that was part of a transfer of cash that led to $9 billion of missing money that was supposed to be part of the initial reconstruction of Iraq.

Then the idea was to use those Iraqi oil revenues to pick up the responsibility and complete the work of rebuilding Iraq. And instead, we know that one of the big challenges the Iraqi government has faced is coming to some agreement on the division of oil revenues, and that's been a major obstacle to rebuilding the country and bringing about national reconciliation. And who is paying the tab for that? U.S. taxpayers.

That is why the issue we're talking about is so important. Because when U.S. taxpayers are bearing the burden of this war, it has an enormous ripple effect throughout our economy because one of the things we know is that when we have these ever-growing trade deficits with countries like China, which is our principal creditor, it makes it very difficult to keep the economy in this country rolling along providing the types of goods and services at a reasonable rate; and that has an enormous impact throughout the economy. And I'm sure as we get further into this, we will have some real examples of the enormous impact on various sectors of the U.S. economy from the burden that we are all responsible for.

But I have to tell you, the idea that you mentioned about shifting the burden in H. Res. 111, I can tell you this is an enormously popular bipartisan idea. In fact, last weekend in my home State of Iowa, the Des Moines Register interviewed every member of the Iowa congressional delegation, Republicans, Democrats, Senators, Representatives, and everyone was unanimous in their sentiment that is exactly the one you expressed in your resolution.

It is time for the Iraqis to pick up the tab for their own well-being and let the American taxpayers focus on the enormous economic problems we're dealing with at home: The bailout of Bear Stearns, the subprime mortgage crisis, all of the things that you work on every day in the Financial Services Committee. And because of that unique role that you play here in Congress, I think you have some special insights that probably would be very enlightening to the people watching tonight and the people of this country about what you're dealing with on a daily basis that's being impacted by this ongoing financial commitment.

Sure. And I'm just going to pick up where Mr. Hall left off. We both have the pleasure of serving on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee here in Congress. And one of the things that we hear about every day is not just the benefits of having, oh, $137 billion to invest in infrastructure--let's just pull that number out of the air--but what happens if you don't address your critical infrastructure needs. Because we hear, for example, that for every 1 minute delay that UPS drivers have in congested urban areas in New York, in Florida, maybe lesser in Iowa, but unique, different types of delays, it imposes enormous economic costs in shipping those goods, which is then passed on to consumers all over this country.

So when I fly into the airport in Moline and I have to cross the I-74 bridge, which is one of the functionally obsolete, structurally deficient bridges in my district, and they've got a lane closed down either for repair work or because an accident is there, it may take you half an hour to drive from one side of the Mississippi River to the other side. And all that does is slow down commerce, it slows down people. And at a time of rising fuel costs, it adds enormously to the prices that we pay to get where we need to go.

And each of us has unique transportation delay issues. Mr. Klein comes from an urban area in Florida where traffic congestion in many ways is a way of life. And you're sitting there waiting to move, your engine is running, and you don't get very high fuel efficiency from that expensive fuel you've got. A lot of my constituents live in rural parts of Iowa, and for them to get basic goods and services they have to drive to a county seat town or to a larger urban area to get what they need. And they have larger fuel costs simply to get what they need to buy to take care of their basic needs. And when we ignore these infrastructure needs that we've been talking about, all it does is have very large ripple effects.

But one of the other things that we talked about here is our whole energy policy. I am very proud of the fact that my State is, I believe, pretty much in the epicenter of the renewable energy explosion. Whether it's ethanol, biodiesel, wind energy, one of the things we're trying to do is create an environment where we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil and not have to worry so much about the impact of what's going on with the Iraqi oil fields on our domestic fuel availability.

And so it's very exciting to see the potential, but one of the things that's disturbing is when we miss opportunities to do more. So if you look at wind energy capacity, most people would be shocked, I think, to realize that the State of North Dakota has the highest wind energy capacity of any State in the country. So they are a prime location for us to sell these wind turbines we're producing in Iowa and start to reduce that dependency on foreign oil.

But they've got a problem. It's the exact same problem Mr. Hall and I saw with the border patrol down in Arizona, and that is, it's one thing to say we need to secure our borders, but if you don't have infrastructure in place to access the border, you can't do your job. They've got a problem in North Dakota because they don't have a grid right now that can handle the energy capacity they would generate and put onto the grid and send out to people in Florida and New York, who have high demand and don't have the ability to meet their energy needs.

So when we're talking about how this war and the funding for the war is impacting Americans, I think that the ripple effect is enormous. And we're really only scratching the surface.

Well, I thank my friend for the opportunity, and also the opportunity to spend time with two of my good friends tonight talking about very, very important issues.

We've focused primarily on the impact of the war in Iraq and the cost of the war on the domestic economy here in the United States. But when I look at my friend from New York and I look at my friend from Florida, two States that really symbolize a growing connection between our domestic economy and the global economy, one of the things we know is a lot of the issues we've talked about tonight all come back to something we all are charged to do when we swore to represent this country, and that is to provide security.

Now that may be security from harm, from foreign interests. It may be economic security. But it all comes together. And we know that many developing countries, the addiction to energy needs is what keeps them suppressed in reaching greater levels of economic stability, and that's why oil and the pursuit of oil has played such an important role in the last 100 years in the world economy.

By exporting our knowledge about renewable energy, about new emerging economies that can be shared and applied in the global economy, I think we can give a great gift to the American people in the return of a safer world, a more secure world, and a world where we have the ability to be able to predict with greater certainty what the current economic trends are going to be and set economic policies, with the assistance of the administration and the Federal Reserve, to address these crises before they become the full-blown crises that we have been talking about on the floor tonight.

So I look forward to working with my friends and my other colleagues here on both sides of the aisle in trying to provide some guidance and direction as we get our hands on this very important subject.

Madam Speaker, today the House considers legislation related to the burdens placed on everyday taxpayers--the Taxpayer Assistance & Simplification Act. This bill includes a number of good provisions, of which I am supportive. However, the bill also includes a provision which would cost Eastern Iowa hundreds of jobs. While there are various, well-thought-out taxpayer protections in this bill, they do not outweigh the negative impact this bill would have on jobs in the First District. For this reason, I intend to oppose H.R. 5719.

Currently, the Internal Revenue Service is allowed to contract with outside agencies for assistance in collecting overdue taxes. After a rigorous competitive bidding process for these contracts, an Eastern Iowa company was fortunate enough to receive one of the contracts, and has been hard at work ever since. While nobody likes to defend the tax man, the fact is, this company employs more than 625 people in Waterloo and another 200 in West Des Moines.

Unfortunately, the bill on the floor today includes a provision that would threaten these Waterloo and West Des Moines jobs. This provision would disallow any future contracts, which could directly result in the loss of hundreds of Iowa jobs. As the Representative of Iowa's First District, I cannot support the elimination of these jobs.

While I intend to vote against this bill due to this provision, I would like to stress my support for other provisions in this bill:

I am supportive of the provision in this bill that requires the IRS to notify taxpayers who may have had their identity stolen. It is unfortunate that the IRS does not already provide this notification, and I believe that protecting the identities of American taxpayers should be a primary goal of government.

I am supportive of the provisions in this bill that strengthen additional protections against identity theft, by increasing the penalties for those who mislead our citizens in order to steal private information. Identity theft is a very serious problem, and I am glad Congress is working to help protect Americans from this growing epidemic.

I am supportive of the provision in this bill that ensures elderly and disabled individuals receiving in-home care are not subject to employment tax provisions. This is a much-needed change that helps protect our senior citizens and disabled citizens.

I am supportive of the provision in this bill to establish a grant program to expand and improve income tax assistance programs to provide services to taxpayers. I am also glad to see that the bill allows IRS employees to refer taxpayers needing assistance with tax cases to taxpayer clinics. As an ardent supporter of tax simplification, this provision ensures help is available to those having trouble with the very complicated process of filing taxes. Just last night I passed H.R. 3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, out of the House. This bill would greatly simplify income tax forms and documents, but until my bill becomes law, these taxpayer assistance clinics will continue to provide valuable services to taxpayers as tax day approaches.

I am supportive of the provision in this bill that requires the IRS to notify taxpayers if they are potentially eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is a good tax credit that should be utilized by everyone who qualifies, and I believe the IRS should help make sure that those who are eligible receive the full benefit.

I am supportive of the provision in this bill that looks into the feasibility of providing tax refunds on debit cards. This could create a more convenient process of receiving tax refunds for many taxpayers.

I am supportive of the provision in this bill which delays the requirement that Federal, State, and local governments withhold 3 percent from many government payments for goods or services. This 3 percent withholding is bad for small businesses and creates a bureaucratic mess, and I believe this withholding should be eliminated. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 1023, which would completely repeal the 3 percent withholding.

I am supportive of the provision in this bill that eliminates the requirement for individuals and small businesses to keep onerous records of calls made on cell phones to substantiate business use of such devices. I have heard from employers in Iowa's First District about the administrative burden that this creates, and I am glad Congress is reducing this burden.

I am supportive of closing the loophole that allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies, performing services as American companies, to avoid paying taxes. This loophole results in a higher tax burden being placed on America's working families, so I am glad this bill takes this action.

Finally, I am supportive of the provision that helps protect against predatory lending by barring the IRS from providing certain services to companies that offer refund anticipation loans, if the IRS determines that the company charges predatory rates.

Again, I believe that many of the provision in the Taxpayer Assistance & Simplification Act will help protect American taxpayers and simplify the process of filing taxes. However, these good parts of the bill do not outweigh the direct, negative impact that the bill would have on jobs in Iowa's First District, which is why I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4881) to prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

H.R. 4881, the Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2008, is a very simple bill and a very timely bill. It prevents companies that don't pay their taxes from receiving contracts with the Federal Government. Today, people across the country are finishing up their tax returns to submit to the IRS by tomorrow. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but the vast majority of American families and companies obey the law and comply with their responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

Unfortunately, some people do not follow the law and have serious delinquencies in paying taxes to the IRS.

What is shocking to me and honest taxpayers across the country is that many companies that didn't pay their taxes were benefiting from Federal Government contracts. GAO studies over the past few years have identified more than 50,000 contractors owing nearly $8 billion in unpaid Federal taxes. This bill will put an end to that problem once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4881 establishes a process to prohibit companies with seriously delinquent Federal tax debt from receiving new Federal contracts and grants. It will reward responsible taxpaying contractors with more opportunities to continue serving the Federal Government for abiding by the law. And it should increase collections because companies will get current on their tax bills if they want to continue receiving Federal contracts. With a mounting Federal budget deficit and rising obligations, the Federal Government cannot afford to leave billions of dollars in tax revenue uncollected.

The sponsor of H.R. 4881, Mr. Ellsworth from Indiana, has put in a lot of work on this bill, and I want to thank him for his efforts. As a former sheriff, he wants to make sure people who break the law are not rewarded.

When we get into contracting and tax law, the law gets complicated. He has worked hard to make sure this law will not have unintended consequences. We also received guidance from our colleagues on the Ways and Means and Joint Tax Committees. I would like to thank my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) and his staff for their assistance.

Chairman Waxman and Chairman Rangel exchanged letters regarding committee jurisdiction on this bill, and I ask that these letters be placed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is of monumental importance to improving fairness and efficiency in Federal contracting. I fully support its passage and urge my colleagues to do the same.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, March 12, 2008.

Hon. Henry Waxman,

Chairman, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Henry, I am writing regarding H.R. 4881, the

Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2008, which the

Oversight and Government Reform Committee ordered favorably

reported on March 13, 2008. As you know, a similar bill, H.R.

1870, was referred to the Oversight and Government Reform

Committee, as well as to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Section 3 of H.R. 4881 authorizes the Secretary of the

Treasury to disclose to other agencies whether or not a

potential Federal

contractor has a seriously delinquent tax debt as defined by

the bill, and requires the Secretary to develop and issue a

form for this purpose. As you know, Rule X gives the

Committee on Ways and Means jurisdiction over subjects

relating to the U.S. Treasury and tax information being

disclosed to other agencies generally, and we have

successfully asserted jurisdiction over similar legislation.

Because our staffs have worked together to produce this

bipartisan legislation, and in order to expedite this

legislation for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo

action on this bill, and will not oppose the inclusion of

these provisions within H.R. 4881. This is being done with

the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the

Committee with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on

this bill or similar legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 4881, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Ellsworth.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished Chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3548) to enhance citizen access to Government information and services by establishing plain language as the standard style for Government documents issued to the public, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, last September, I introduced H.R. 3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, and I rise today to talk about the responsibility of this government to communicate effectively with its constituents.

I know that lawyers are often blamed for the legalese that makes government documents so difficult to read and understand. Some might find it unusual that this ``Plain Language'' bill was introduced by someone who practiced law for 23 years before being elected to Congress. They might be surprised to learn that the use of clear,

concise language in communications has been a passion of mine since I began practicing law in 1983, when the Iowa Supreme Court adopted plain language requirements for jury instructions. Since that time, I have been writing and speaking about the importance of using plain language to improve both written and spoken communications.

I was proud to introduce the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, a bill that requires the Federal Government to write documents such as letters from the Social Security Administration or a notice from the Department of Veterans Affairs in simple, easy-to- understand language. This bill has been endorsed by a broad array of organizations, including the AARP, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Disabled American Veterans, the Small Business Association, Women Impacting Policy, the American Nurses Association, and the American Library Association.

I want to thank the Information Policy Subcommittee Chairman William Lacy Clay and Ranking Member Michael Turner, as well as Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis for their support of this important legislation. I am pleased that this bill has such strong bipartisan support and passed unanimously in both of these committees.

Anyone who has done their own taxes knows the headache of trying to understand pages and pages of confusing forms and instructions. There is no reason why the Federal Government can't write tax documents and other public documents in language we can all understand.

Writing government documents in plain language will increase government accountability and will save Americans time and money. Plain, straightforward language makes it easy for taxpayers to understand what the Federal Government is doing and what services it's offering.

Small businesses will also see substantial benefits by eliminating Federal gobbledygook. Small businesses often have limited resources and are forced to hire lawyers and outside consultants to navigate the maze of Federal paperwork and convoluted language.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses estimates that the average per hour cost of paperwork and record keeping for small businesses is $48.72 per hour. The use of clear, easy-to-understand language in government paperwork will substantially reduce burdens on small businesses.

The Plain Language in Government Communications Act will require the Federal Government to write new publications, forms and publicly distributed documents in a clear, concise, well organized manner that follows the best practices of plain language writing.

I have in my hand the Plain Language Handbook that's already being used by the Securities Exchange Commission, along with the Federal Plain Language guidelines which were adopted under another plain language initiative that began under President Clinton. These guidelines make it clear that the ultimate purpose of any communication from the Federal Government should be to reach the intended audience, the constituents and citizens of this country, in language they can understand and act upon.

Using complex language in government forms, letters, notices and instructions imposes unnecessary hardships on citizens. Replacing complex language with plain language will improve services to the public, save time agencies spend answering questions about what documents mean, and make it easier to hold government agencies accountable for their work.

This document to my right is a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I talk about the problem posed by using gobbledygook in Federal communications. This is a quote from a former Secretary of Defense, and it says, ``There are known knowns. These are things we know we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are some things we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.''

That is the problem we are trying to address with this bill.

One other example is this language from a Federal contract requiring investigations of contracts to make sure that they are living up to the purpose that they were intended to perform. This is the original language that was contained in the contracting compliance document, and it covers almost an entire page. The plain language version of that same admonition says simply: ``We will take two steps to look at this matter. We will find out if it was an error or a fraud, and we will let you know the result.'' Clear, concise, and directed to the intended audience.

Finally, one of the best examples of the cost-savings potential is this Veterans Administration form that was used to respond to concerns raised by veterans seeking assistance with their benefits. An old letter that was not drafted in plain language generated an average of 91.4 calls per month, a total of 10,968 calls in a year. After that same form was drafted using these very basic plain language guidelines, they resulted in only 16 calls per month and a total of 1,900 calls for the entire year. You can imagine the enormous savings of time at the Veterans Administration responding to concerns from veterans seeking assistance when you reduce it by that much.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to clarify that nothing in this bill is intended to impact the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 13166, Department of Justice LEP Guidance, any agency LEP guidance, or any other statute, executive order, agency guidance, regulation, or court order regarding language access.

I hope this bill makes it easier for Americans and small businesses to work with and understand their government. I also hope that in some small way, this bill honors the memory of our former colleague, Maury Maverick, Sr., who served two terms in the House from 1935 to 1939. Congressman Maverick invented the term ``gobbledygook'' to describe bureaucratic language that was as hard to understand as the call of wild turkeys in his native South Texas.

I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who join me today in standing up for plain language, in standing up for effective communications with our constituents, in standing up for small business owners, and in standing up for taxpayers, who will see significant cost savings when this bill is signed into law.

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

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

I want to thank my colleague from Idaho for working to improve this bill and also for sharing my passion for making sure that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to communicate clearly and effectively with the citizens and taxpayers of this country.

I also want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for her excellent point that adopting plain language requirements does nothing to dumb down the intent and purpose of these Federal documents. In fact, the whole point of adopting plain language guidelines is to improve the effectiveness and the clarity of these documents so that the average person who interacts with them on a daily basis is able to respond directly to the responsibilities laid out under the Federal statutes and regulations and perform the obligations that they are required to by law.

So I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for having enormous opportunities to make this a bill that I think we can all be proud of, one that our constituents back home will benefit from, and one that will save, most significantly, the taxpayers of this country, in my belief, millions and millions of dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would just like to remind everyone that one of the points of the bill is it to save taxpayers money. The example that I used earlier from the Jackson, Mississippi, Veterans Benefits Administration where they changed the form that allowed them to reduce substantially the number of requests they got from veterans seeking help with their disability benefits saved $10,000 in one year, just that one form. And if you think about the multiplier effect of applying plain language guidelines to documents in every Federal agency that are being sent out to citizens and taxpayers, the enormous potential at savings is something that I think we will all be proud of once this bill is signed into law by the President.

With that, I urge its passage.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on rollcall 161, H.J. Res. 70, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall 162, H.R. 2464, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall 163, S. 793, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Don Temeyer on his retirement as the Community Planning and Development Director for the City of Waterloo. At the end of this month, Don will be retiring after 33 years of service to the City of Waterloo.

Over the past 33 years, Don has been instrumental in moving the City of Waterloo forward and bringing the community together. With Don's guidance the City of Waterloo has seen successes from economic development to upgrading the city's recreational opportunities.

Don has served six different mayors and began his work in the Planning and Zoning office in 1974, the same year he graduated from Iowa State University. Don eventually headed this department. Community Planning and Development--comprised of Planning and Zoning, Community Development, the Waterloo Housing Authority and economic development functions--was formed in the middle 1990s with Don taking the lead.

Don has dedicated his life to the promotion and development of the City of Waterloo. His work has proven that strong community advocates can make a tremendous difference in their own backyards. With Don's retirement we are losing years of institutional knowledge and a champion for the needs of Waterloo residents. I am proud to represent Don and the City of Waterloo in Congress. I wish him the best in all his endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, despite the continued lack of political progress in Iraq, we are still fighting and funding this war at a time when the country's economic future is at stake. General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, admitted last month that ``no one in the U.S. and Iraqi governments feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.'' And yet we continue to spend $14 million every hour in Iraq, while more Americans are looking for work, millions of Americans are on the verge of losing their homes, and gas prices have hit an all-time high.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when we spend $14 million an hour in Iraq, we are neglecting real needs here in the United States. But we are also hurting our economy because we aren't able to properly invest in America. This war has diverted nearly $1 trillion away from American schools, roads, research and other areas that would have stimulated the economy in the short-term and produced stronger economic growth in the long run.

It is time to stop spending our money in Iraq and start focusing on helping our families here at home.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall 147, H.R. 3352, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 148, H.R. 2675, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 149, H. Con. Res. 302, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding results achieved by the Dubuque Wahlert Golden Eagles basketball team at the Iowa State Boys Basketball Tournament in Des Moines this past weekend.

With 2 seconds left in the championship game, No. 2 ranked Wahlert and No. 4 ranked Harlan were tied at 67. Wahlert called a time out and Billy Scherr threw a full-court inbound pass to teammate Eric May; Eric squared up to the basket and nailed a 35 foot 3-point-jumper at the buzzer. It was a magic moment!

I congratulate the Golden Eagles for winning the Iowa Class 3A state championship. This thrilling 70-67 victory by Wahlert gives Dubuque its first state champion since 1931. The Golden Eagles now have a third basketball state championship trophy to add to the case.

Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud of the accomplishments of the Wahlert basketball team, both on and off the court. Perhaps Paul ``Bear'' Bryant, the late, great coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide football team says it best: ``Show class, have pride. and display character. If you do, winning takes care of itself.'' This past weekend, Wahlert proved just that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my almamater, Iowa State University, for 150 years of service to Iowa and the Nation. Iowa State University was founded on March 22, 1858, as the Iowa Agricultural College and Model Farm. The college was one of the first land grant institutions in the country and was founded in response to the state of Iowa's strong desire to provide higher education opportunities to farm families and the working class in Iowa.

I'm proud to say that my alma mater has taken an active role in promoting social justice and racial equality throughout its 150 year history. Iowa State University was the first coeducational land grant university graduating 16 women in its first graduating class. George Washington Carver was the first African American to graduate from the college in 1880 and later served as a faculty member at Iowa State. Women suffragist Carrie Chapman Catt also graduated from Iowa State in 1880. Finally, Iowa State is home to the only division one football stadium to be named for an African American. Jack Trice stadium is named for Iowa State football player Jack Trice. Trice died due to injuries suffered during an Iowa State football game in 1923.

Some of the biggest technological advancements in the world of science were made at Iowa State University. In the late 1930's Professor John Atanasoff and graduate student Clifford Berry invented the first electronic digital computer at Iowa State. In the 1920's hybrid seed corn was developed at Iowa State and in the 1930's Professor Orland Sweeny conducted pioneer work on ethanol production from corn. Finally, the school established the Nation's first engineering experiment station and domestic economy experimental kitchen, and one of the first agricultural experiment stations.

I'm proud to call Iowa State my alma mater and congratulate them for 150 years of academic excellence. I urge my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the Iowa Sate community for all they have done and will continue to do for Iowa and the nation

Madam Speaker, while President Bush and congressional Republicans sit on the sideline demanding that this House rubber-stamp the Senate-passed FISA bill, House and Senate Democrats are doing exactly what's expected of us, working to iron out differences between different FISA bills passed earlier in the two Chambers.

Last November, the House passed the RESTORE Act that modernizes the FISA law by giving the intelligence community the tools it needs to track terrorists while protecting the constitutional rights of innocent Americans.

The Bush administration objects to our legislation because we oppose giving blanket immunity to telecommunications companies who turned over information about their customers. Today, our committees continue to review telecom documents so that we can ensure the companies' actions are thoroughly reviewed and they are held appropriately accountable.

Madam Speaker, despite the fear-mongering from the President, his own administration says the intelligence community still has access to all the information it did last month. We have time to get this critical legislation right, and that's exactly what we plan to do.

I would like to thank my friend. I would also like to thank my friend from New Hampshire, who mentioned earlier the great American patriot and trial lawyer, John Adams, my ancestor.

One of the real thrills of serving in this body is the ability to experience special events. We got that opportunity here tonight when out in Statuary Hall there was a reception and later a special viewing of an incredible new series on HBO dedicated to examining the life of John Adams and the enormous impact he had on this country.

I think it is very significant to take a moment and realize that 238 years ago today the Boston Massacre occurred, one of the pivotal events in our country's founding, and John Adams, a noted trial lawyer of his day, was given the dubious distinction of defending the British soldiers who made the first attack on those patriots, those brave patriots like Crispus Attucks. Like many trial lawyers, he was faced with the responsibility of doing his duty to perform an unpleasant task, and he did it because he knew that it was an important part of maintaining a system of laws, not of men.

I also think it is important to note that of those people like John Adams

who were present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 24 of them were lawyers who understood the importance of the very issues we are talking about today.

Why do I know that? Because if you read the Declaration of Independence, you will see the stated grievances against King George and that the amazing parallels in those grievances that they were discussing at the founding of our Nation and the same things we are talking about today is stark.

Let me remind you of what is in the Declaration. These are the grievances they identified against King George III.

For depriving us in many cases of the right to trial by jury, which is why the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees the trial by jury in all civil cases where the monetary value is in excess of $15.

Also the grievance for taking and abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our government.

Third, for suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves, the king, vested with the powers to legislate for us.

That is why these are fundamental civil rights that have been part of this country's history since its founding that we are talking about.

My friend from Colorado made a great point. What we are talking about with the setting up of the FISA courts was setting up retroactive warranties that gave the government the extraordinary ability to do wiretapping without a court order, which had never been before tolerated in this country, with the understanding that the terrorism risk justified that sacrifice, and setting up the FISA courts for an orderly form of due process to look backwards and guarantee that human rights were not being violated. So we are talking here about retroactive immunity, when we have already got retroactive warranties and a process in place to take care of these concerns.

One of the things that nobody has talked about on the floor during the debate over this issue is the fact that retroactive immunity only benefits wrongdoers. If you have done nothing wrong under the law or the Constitution, you don't need immunity.

My friends have been talking about the underlying basis for the violation of laws by the telecoms, and I think we need to state what that is. It goes back to 1934. The Federal Communications Act, Section 222, this Congress imposed on telecommunication carriers, such as all these companies we are talking about, the duty under law to protect sensitive personal customer information from disclosure. That is the basic statutory right that is at stake by allowing retroactive immunity to companies who violate that law.

So when people complain about us arguing the merits of standing up for defense of the Constitution and the laws passed by this Congress, I am at a loss to understand why we should be subject to all of this angst for simply doing our jobs and standing up for the oath we took when we were sworn in to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of this country.

With that, I yield back to my friend.

That is the very essence of the authority given to these telecommunications carriers, to use that public trust of allowing them to monitor and handle communications through a system of phone lines, which is what we had back in 1934, and in exchange for that trust, imposing on them the duty to protect that sensitive information. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. That is why we have a system in place to guarantee the privacy of those customers.

If the gentleman would yield for a question, I know that my friend from Colorado happens to represent a district where the headquarters for one of the telecommunications carriers is located, Denver, Colorado, where Quest has one of its primary business centers.

What I would like to ask my friend is, why didn't Quest go along with this request from the government? A lot of these other telecoms did. What was it that prompted them to say this doesn't sound right?

If you would yield for another question, I am going to pose this to all of my friends here on the floor.

When somebody comes to me and asks me to ignore my duties to make sure that the laws and the Constitution are followed, which is what they are asking us to do by granting immunity to these phone companies, I think the average American citizen would expect at a minimum that I would be aware of what was in these documents that are at the subject of this request for immunity.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't seen a single document that has been produced in order to supposedly justify a claim for immunity. I am just curious whether any of my friends have seen them in their capacity as a Member of Congress?