Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my older brother, for all the work that he did.

Really, in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas, who, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security for 2 years was instrumental in writing this legislation; who, as a Member of the Committee on Rules in the 109th Congress, has been appointed by the chairman as liaison to the Select Committee on Homeland Security and has made possible the process by which we will consider this bill on the floor today.

In fact, it really merits pointing out today that the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives has played a special role in the establishment of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, for which this is the first major legislative effort on the floor this year.

In the last Congress, not only the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) but also the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules of the Select Committee on Homeland Security; the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the full Committee on Rules; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who is now chairman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack of the Select Committee on Homeland Security; and Porter Goss of Florida, who is now the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, all were Members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the last Congress and also Members of the Committee on Rules that worked to change the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives to make sure we would have a focus on this critical national priority that both President Bush and the leaders of this Congress have recognized as so important that we have reorganized the entire executive branch and now the legislative branch of government. That is the process by which this rule and the bill that it outlines are coming to the floor today.

Since September 11, over $30 billion in terrorism preparedness funding has gone from the Federal Government to State and local governments. In this year's budget, President Bush has added to the annual amount an incremental $2 billion more. That will mean that we have had an increase in annual spending on terrorism preparedness for States and localities since 9/11 of over 2,000 percent. The question is not whether we are putting enough money into terrorism preparedness for our first responders. The question is whether the money is making it to the frontlines. And the answer to that is, no, it is not. And the question is also whether it is being spent properly, in a way that makes us more prepared. And, unfortunately, the answer to that question is, not always.

There are opportunities for major improvement, and that is what this bill is all about. It is called the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responder Act because it solves both those problems. It will get the money to the frontlines faster, and it will make sure that we are spending the money based on what we know from our intelligence about terrorist threats and capabilities, our own vulnerabilities, and the consequences of terrorist attacks.

I strongly support this rule and look forward to passage of the bill later today.

Mr. Speaker, following on the remarks by my colleague from New York, who has been a strong supporter of reform in this area, I just want to correct a statement that he made. He suggested that this legislation violates the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the 9/11 Commission has expressly endorsed this legislation in precisely the form that it is coming to the floor today and the cochairman, Lee Hamilton, of the 9/11 Commission took the time to come to the Committee on Homeland Security just a few days ago to testify in solid support of this legislation.

And so as we go forward with the bill, I just want the Members to know that this bill in its present form is strongly endorsed by the 9/ 11 Commission, and it implements their recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1544.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. I am here on the floor today with the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). He and I are here to argue today on behalf of a bill that is strongly endorsed by every single Republican and Democratic member of the Committee on Homeland Security. More than that, this legislation is supported by the Bush administration. We have received a formal statement of administration support for this bill. It is strongly endorsed by the 9/11 Commission whose recommendation that first responder funding be placed on a risk basis this bill implements. It is endorsed by scores of first responder groups, the men and women on the front lines for whom this money is intended. They worked with us over a period of over 2 years, first to identify the problems in the current grant-making system for billions of homeland security and terrorism preparedness dollars and, second, to develop a solution.

The solution that today's bill presents is a simple one. We are going to move away from political formulas for allocating these billions of dollars and toward a system that relies on the intelligence that the American taxpayer already purchases at the price of billions of dollars every year, information about terrorist capabilities and intentions, information about our own critical infrastructure and vulnerabilities and information about the potential consequences of different kinds of terrorist attacks. In combination, this mix of threat, vulnerability and consequence is called risk. Funding for first responders in the future is going to be based upon risk. That is what this bill is all about.

And we solve the second problem. Of the over $30 billion in terrorism preparedness moneys that the Federal Government has made available to States and localities since September 11, some 60 percent of it is not yet spent. It is stuck in the administrative pipeline.

There are a number of reasons for this that our committee has discovered through field hearings across the country, hearings here in Washington, and our own investigation. But at bottom it is this: right now there is an ``ad hockery'' to the way that moneys are passed around the country. There is no predictability about when the funds might arrive, whether reimbursement will be there. And the planning, as a result, tends to take place after the money is received, slowing things down.

In our new system, the planning will be moved at the front end of the process. Every State which already has a statewide terrorism preparedness plan will ensure that when these applications for grants are made, they are directly tied to that statewide plan and also directly tied to the achievement of national objectives for first responder preparedness.

We will have clear standards for the first responders so that they will not have these kinds of questions about reimbursement that have plagued them in the past. We will know that what we are buying in the form of equipment and training will be directly tied to national terrorism preparedness goals.

In recent days, there has been a fair amount of press coverage about abuses of homeland security spending. For example, right here in Washington, D.C., we learned that $100,000 of this grant money meant for first responder terrorism preparedness was instead spent on a Dale Carnegie course for sanitation workers, another $100,000 was spent to develop a rap song purportedly to educate young people about how to be prepared in the case of a terrorist attack.

These kinds of abuses will come to an end as a result of this legislation, and our money will be directed toward keeping our first responders, who are not only first in line to protect us but first in line for the terrorists, the first to die if this system does not work right, keeping these people well trained and well equipped.

I would like to thank, in addition to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, the other members of the Committee on Homeland Security. There has been a great deal of work that has gone into this bill. The last step in bringing this to the floor was a 13- hour markup in our committee. I think what we will find today, Mr. Chairman, is that this debate will go forward in a very bipartisan fashion. We might not agree about all the details of this legislation. We may not agree when we go to conference with the Senate. And when we come back with a conference report, hopefully in just a few weeks or maybe a few months, we may not agree on every detail.

But there is a big change in this bill that we all agree on, and that is that henceforth moneys for terrorism preparedness that go from Washington to States and localities to our police, to our firefighters, to our EMS personnel, to people in hospitals who will be there in case of a biological attack or indeed to treat the wounded in case of any attack, that the people who get these moneys will be assured that, first, the moneys will arrive soon, on time, right after we want them to be available; and, second, they will know how to spend it and they will know, when they spend it in accordance with their plans, they will get reimbursed for it. This will move America in the direction that we need to go to be prepared for another terrorist attack.

A great deal of our work in the Committee on Homeland Security is focused on preventing terrorist attacks,

as well we should be focused; but I have no doubt that someday somewhere terrorists will again strike our country; and when that happens, we are going to rely on our first responders just as we did on 9/11, and next time we want to make sure they have all the training and all the equipment that they need. This bill is a strong step in that direction. It is something that I think we can all be very proud of.

I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi, who, as the leader of the minority, has made it possible for us to keep in mind that when the terrorists attack us, they are not going to attack Democrats or Republicans. They are going to attack Americans. And we are all Americans here, and we are all doing the right thing today.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.

Hon. Christopher Cox,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.

1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act

of 2005.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1544 and

the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.

Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over

certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a

sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my

decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or

otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and

of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional

interest will be included in the Committee report and in the

Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House

Floor.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also

asks that you support our request to be conferees on the

provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-

Senate conference.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Don Young,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the former Attorney General of California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Fossella).

(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the bill before us today expressly permits grant recipients to use, with the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security, up to 10 percent of their covered grant funds for measures to protect critical infrastructure, and this would include building barriers, fences, gates and so on. In the case of New York, that would mean that $21 million would be available for this purpose.

The question of using Federal grant funds to pay for the salaries of local law enforcement officers is a very consequential one with impacts far beyond New York. The resolution of that question and all of its complexity is beyond the scope of this bill, but I want the gentleman to know that I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I will look forward to working with him on these issues in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). This has been a collaborative effort for several years now. I also want to pay homage to the gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) predecessor, Mr. Turner of Texas, who also led the minority ably on this issue.

Today we have an opportunity to establish a new grant process to provide better support to the brave men and women who are the first to rush into burning buildings, the people who place themselves in the line of fire to protect the innocent, the ones who save the sick and wounded under the most trying of circumstances.

It is no accident that this bill has been endorsed by every major first responders group in America, by the Bush administration, by the 9/11 Commission; and, indeed, I expect it will receive a strong endorsement from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1544. By passing this bill, we will take yet another important step since September 11 to help our Nation meet the urgent challenge of terrorism in our cities and hometowns.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, even though I have claimed the time in opposition to the amendment, I actually want to speak in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1544, the bill that the gentleman would amend, as written requires the Department of Homeland Security to analyze risk in rural America. That is a big step forward. For example, the disruption to the agricultural and food sectors by acts of bioterrorism would result in considerable economic and health consequences.

This amendment will ensure that the grants board established by H.R. 1544 contain a member with expertise in this very area. The designee of this amendment, the administrator of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is well versed in agro-terrorism. This is a wise choice.

As a part of the USDA, APHIS is responsible for safeguarding the agriculture and food infrastructures not only from pests and diseases but also biological threats. Indeed, APHIS currently works closely with the Department of Science and Technology directorate, that is, the Department of Homeland Security's directorate, and plays an important role in agro-terrorism preparedness.

Specifically, APHIS is already involved in the following: accelerating the development of countermeasures to agro-terrorism; bio- forensic capabilities; deploying diagnostic technologies; and research, development and training activities.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I strongly urge my colleagues on the committee and my colleagues in the House to vote in support of the Berry amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Mike Rogers).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, notwithstanding that I rise in its support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this Berry amendment. It is completely consistent with the intent of the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act. Indeed, H.R. 1544 contains many other provisions with the same purpose: to enhance Federal, State, local, regional and tribal government cooperation in the process of establishing the criteria for prioritizing applications for covered grants. For example, the bill directs the Secretary to establish a first responders task force.

This task force, which will advise the Secretary of Homeland Security on preparedness benchmarks, will consist of 25 members, representative of all of the first-responder disciplines and a substantive cross- section of geography from across the Nation.

The Berry amendment, in my view, will help ensure that the Grant Board's risk-based analysis adequately addresses the concerns of State, local, regional and tribal governments who, after all, have direct jurisdiction and control over the first responders who are the focal point of this legislation. This amendment will provide important comfort to covered grant applicants as the department shifts from a political, formula-driven system to one based on risk.

A dramatic programmatic shift such as the one established by this bill cannot be made in a vacuum. It must be made in close coordination with the people most affected. That is the purpose of the bill as it is written.

I think the Berry amendment clarifies that purpose in a useful way, and I strongly support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for the time.

I rise in support of the Bass-Norwood amendment. I strongly support this amendment, and I do so for several reasons.

First, since the attacks of 9/11, States and local governments are increasingly stepping up to the plate and assuming some of what have traditionally been the Federal Government's responsibilities in the area of terrorism preparedness. For example, many State and local governments have entered into agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard or with immigration and customs enforcement or other elements of the Department of Homeland Security to perform responsibilities relating to homeland security.

Second, the Bass-Norwood amendment, which would permit petitioning the Secretary for reimbursement for expenses in this regard, is fiscally responsible. It would not, for example, permit grant recipients to use covered grant funds to supplant routine State or local government expenses. It does not permit, for example, reimbursement for personnel costs.

The Bass-Norwood amendment is also properly targeted in scope. States and localities may defray the costs of their assumed homeland security duties only with the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and States and localities that have assumed these kinds of duties have to have done so pursuant to an agreement with a Federal agency.

The Federal Government, in my view, should encourage States and localities to assist the Federal Government in providing security where it would otherwise be lacking, and that is what this amendment is going to help us do. To support this policy, it is incumbent upon Congress to permit State and local governments to petition the Secretary for reimbursement.

The Bass-Norwood amendment is consistent with other provisions of this bill. Specifically, H.R. 1544, the underlying bill, permits covered grant recipients to satisfy the matching requirements through in-kind contributions of goods or services, or other equipment, fuel, maintenance, personnel overtime and other costs that are associated with State and local assumption of Federal terrorism preparedness duties.

For all of these reasons, I strongly support the Bass-Norwood amendment. I congratulate its authors for presenting it before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I too rise in opposition to this amendment.

I agree with the intention of the author of the amendment to limit the number of grant awards under the Urban Area Security Initiative, but I do not agree with the thrust of the amendment, which is to, in essence, perpetuate a system that sends money exclusively to cities and ignores regions.

One of the important reforms made in H.R. 1544 is that we open up the process to regional grant applications. I come from the most populated State in America: California. My county, just one of 58 counties in California, has 3 million people. Los Angeles, obviously, is an enormous urban center. But the important thing to note about both Los Angeles and New York is that the L.A. region and the New York City region are bigger and geographically more relevant than the city qua city. The municipal boundaries of New York or the municipal boundaries of Los Angeles are not nearly so important, if there is a radiological attack, for example, as understanding where that plume is going to go and what are the evacuation corridors.

We have learned since 9/11 we have got to have regional collaboration. In my home county, Orange County, which as I said has 3 million people, we had two cities get Urban Area Security Initiative money. This was like the fickle finger of fate that touched those two cities and gave them all the cash and ignored the County of Orange, ignored the municipalities situated right next door to them. Happily, due to the leadership of Sheriff Mike Carona and the chairman of the Board of Supervisors Bill Campbell, and the mayor of Santa Ana, Miguel Pulido, and the mayor of Anaheim, Curt Pringle, there has been a workout, a local arrangement made to equitably distribute these urban area security initiative monies. But that is not the way the program is designed.

We have made sense of it in California despite the nonsense of the Federal program itself. Perpetuating this program, trying to focus more emphasis on it is the wrong way to go. UASI is broke, and it makes no sense to place more emphasis upon it.

Finally, let me say that only regional grants, not State grants, may be able to address certain unique terrorism preparedness needs, such as risks that cross interstate or international boundaries, for example, bioterrorism or agro-terrorism. In this respect, I agree with the comments made by the author of the amendment. I think that to the extent we emphasize a regional approach, a mutual-aid approach, we will find ourselves better prepared in the future. That is the aim, one of the chief aims of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and for those reasons I counsel opposition to this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Delaware. I would like to assure him that the bill before us today is designed to prepare every State, small, medium and large, to respond in the event of a terrorist attack.

The Department's current method for allocating terrorism preparedness grant funds has not always well served small and medium sized States, including Delaware. The current grant system takes risk into account only in a limited way by specially earmarking funds to a handful of large urban areas under the urban area security initiative. With respect to all the rest of the funding, the current system ignores the threats, vulnerabilities and consequences of acts of terrorism anywhere else in the United States. Yet

throughout America, there are populations and critical infrastructure that terrorists have within their sights.

H.R. 1544 would eliminate this anomaly by requiring a risk-based analysis that covers every part of America, urban, suburban and rural, based on objective criteria. To this end, H.R. 1544 establishes a first-responder grant board to prioritize and evaluate all applications for covered grants on the basis of risk and need.

During this evaluation and prioritization process, the grant board must consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, various critical infrastructure sectors in all areas of the Nation, urban, suburban and rural. Indeed, the 16 critical infrastructure sectors enumerated in H.R. 1544 encompass a large number of critical infrastructure sectors, including agriculture and food, banking and finance, energy, public health and health care, government facilities, transportation systems, and water.

As Delaware's former Governor, the gentleman knows that Delaware contains a great deal of critical infrastructure, including chemical plants, banking and finance, and ports. But he and I also know that, under current law, the Department does not consider these factors in awarding grant funds to his State. Delaware has no jurisdiction that receives grant funds from the urban area security initiative. As a result, like many States under the current system, Delaware only receives grant moneys under the State homeland security grant program. But funding under that program is awarded solely on the basis of an arbitrary political formula without regard to Delaware's actual risk or need. Passage of this legislation, the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act, will remedy these problems.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Delaware for yielding the time but more importantly for offering this important amendment. The House has voted in support of this amendment before. During the 108th Congress, twice it passed the House. As a stand-alone measure, all by itself, on September 14, 2004, and when it was up on its own merits, the recorded vote was 397-3.

This is a commonsense amendment that is vitally important. It would provide protection to people who donate fire control or fire rescue equipment, but more importantly, it would better equip and protect our Nation's firefighters, and that is what this bill is all about. This bill is for our first responders. So is the Castle amendment. It will encourage fire departments, the private sector and other people to donate equipment that the firefighters desperately need so that they can better protect every American.

Many people incorrectly assume that all firefighters work in departments that have the latest and the best equipment. The reality, unfortunately, is far different. It is estimated that 30,000 firefighters every day risk their lives unnecessarily due to inadequate personal protective equipment, just to cite one example.

This is a fiscally prudent amendment. It is going to stretch our dollars. It serves the interests of taxpayers by extending the life of equipment they have already paid for. This is expensive equipment, and it ought to be used. And it provides poorer jurisdictions with capabilities they might not otherwise have and might not have the ability to attain.

I congratulate the gentleman for offering the amendment, I strongly support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support as well.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. COX: Committee on Homeland Security. H.R. 1817. A bill

to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the

Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, with

an amendment; Referred to the Committee on Energy and

Commerce for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for

consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as

fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to

clause 1(f), rule X. Referred to the Committee on Government

Reform for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for

consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as

fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to

clause 1(h), rule X. Referred to the Committee on Judiciary

for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for

consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as

fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to

clause 1(l), rule X. Referred to the Committee on Science for

a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for consideration

of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within

the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(o),

rule X. Referred to the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure for a period ending not later than May 13,

2005 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(r), rule X. Referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means for a period ending not later than May 13,

2005 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X. Referred to the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence for a period ending not

later than May 13, 2005 for consideration of such provisions

of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of

that committee pursuant to clause 11(b), rule X. (Rept. 109-

71, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill authored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and commend him for his great work on behalf of America's job creators.

I just heard the Democratic Member say that only a tiny fraction of the people who die in America and their families have to pay this death tax. Apparently, the gentleman has never had to go through the dreaded form 706. How many of us right now are trying to deal with form 1040? Even though we deal with it year in and year out, we still cannot figure it out. What we are trying to get rid of is the complexity of the Tax Code and the $20 billion a year that the death tax consumes from the American economy that does not go to the Treasury but, rather, goes to tax lawyers and accountants and life insurance sales and keyman policies and so on, all of this estate planning which is economic waste. It is hurting our economy.

Eighty-eight pages of the Internal Revenue Code, 88 pages of law, are devoted to trying to close the loopholes that have erupted over the 20th century as our experiment with the death tax has shown that it actually costs the government and costs the American people money to maintain it. Much as we would like to be able to tax the super-rich, they get out of the tax with trusts and loopholes and so on, as will the rich after we do what the Democrats want, which is to create some complicated new definitions to try and cabin off this tax so it only affects a few people. The only people who will actually be hurt by the burden of these new complex rules and laws will be people who we do not want to pay the tax in the first place.

If at the time that one of one's loved ones dies, just to file the return, not pay the tax, they are going to have to plow through all of these helpful instructions that are in such small print that even a high school student might need reading glasses to get through some of these 40 pages. But here is the kind of helpful thing one will find when a loved one dies: ``Generally, you may list on Schedule M all property interests that pass from the decedent to the surviving spouse and are included in the gross estate. However, you should not list any `nondeductible terminable interests,' described below, on Schedule M unless you are making a QTIP election. The property for which you make this election must be included on Schedule M. See `qualified terminable interest property' on the following page.

``For the rules on common disaster and survival for a limited period, see section 2056(b)(3).''

This is just one little paragraph out of 40 pages of this. They are going to have to hire a lawyer. They are going to have to hire an accountant to go through all this and list everything that their family member has accumulated throughout his or her entire life just to prove that they do not owe this tax. Anybody who is slogging through their form 1040 trying to file their income tax return now knows what I am talking about.

We are trying to eliminate the complexity of this law which hurts every single person who works for a small business in America. When that small business is liquidated in order to pay the death tax because it is a tax on property of small businesses, people lose their jobs, and that is where the burden and the incidence of this tax falls.

Repealing the death tax once and for all is the right thing to do, and I am very pleased that this rule will bring that to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the preceding speaker just told us that he does not like the carryover basis. And I will tell you what. If his amendment got rid of any aspect of carryover basis in death tax I would vote for it. But this is a give-with-the-right-hand, take-away-with- the-left-hand operation that he is proposing, because what he is also doing is he is bringing back the 47 percent death tax.

We are trying to repeal the death tax, not bring it back; and you cannot tell us that capital gains at 15 percent is worse than the death tax at 47 percent.

And as the gentleman from North Dakota just mentioned, we do not have a carryover basis in its entirety. We have simply a step up in basis for both the spouse and for the children.

I wish we could get rid of the carryover basis. I would be thrilled with that. But the Pomeroy substitute gives us the death tax back full strength at 47 percent tax rate, and it arbitrarily says that a small business that is worth $3 million is going to have to deal with this.

Now you have to ask yourself, in advance of your death, do you know what the assets and inventory of your business is going to be 10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road? The answer is no. Of course not. You are going to have to do that tax compliance year in and year out.

Tax compliance, the cost of actual accountants and lawyers and life insurance and all the other things that you have to do to deal with the death tax year in and year out is $20 billion a year.

This tax, the death tax, kills between 170,000 and a quarter million jobs each year, according to the Nonprofit Center For Data Analysis. The death tax is a job killer. It is destroying family farms and businesses. It is a drag on economic growth, and it is the greatest disincentive to invest additional capital in family businesses in America.

But the authors of this amendment still want to pry lots of cash out of the cold dead fingers of America's deceased entrepreneurs. So they rewrite the language of the Tax Code so we can keep all 88 pages of complexity of the death tax and all the thousands of pages of regulation and the hundreds of thousands of pages of case law that go with it. This is the most complex part of one of the most complex tax systems in the world, and it is time to drive a stake through its heart. It is time for the death tax to die.

This is not the time to redefine the death tax or add legislative language so that tax lawyers and accountants can have more to play with. It is time to kill it. And that is why we must vote against this amendment and in favor of the total repeal of the death tax.

Here is the message that this amendment, were it to be adopted, sends to American workers: Do not work for a small- or medium-sized American family business. Do not work for a large family owned business. To be safe, do not work for any small businesses that are growing quickly or picking up new customers or introducing new products. Because the Federal Government has decided that the family businesses can grow without the destructive burden of the death tax but only until some IRS bureaucrat decides that these businesses are worth $3.5 million dollars. Then the businesses will be subject to huge new tax burdens. And guess what? You will not know until it is too late whether you are on one side or the other side of that threshold.

I have to tell you, it sounds like $3 million is a lot of money. And it is if you or I had it in our pocket. But for a business, counting its real estate, its assets, its inventory, its trucks, that is a tiny business indeed. And if you are trying to employ some people, you have 10, 11, 12 people that work for that business, what are you going to say to them when they lose their jobs because the family business has to be liquidated on the death of the entrepreneur in order to come up with the actual cash to pay for it?

The IRS is not going to accept shares of stock in the family business in payment of the death tax. They are going to say, go sell those shares, go liquidate the business, go sell the assets in order to pay off the tax plan.

To the supporters of this amendment I say we agree with you that the death tax destroys family farms and businesses. Obviously, that is your presumption if you are trying to have a threshold below which people will not pay it. We agree with you that the death tax destroys family farms and businesses, that it kills jobs and reduces economic growth. So why do you want to keep this monster alive?

Please join with us and kill the death tax once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to recognize Dr. R. Duncan Luce of the University of California-Irvine for his outstanding contributions to the scientific community. Professor Luce is one of eight U.S. scientists and engineers--and one of four Californians--to receive the 2003 National Medal of Science, the Nation's highest scientific honor.

Professor Luce is no stranger to high honors. Over his 50-year career, Professor Luce has been awarded the Society of Experimental Psychologists' Norman Anderson Award, the Decision Analysis Society's Frank P. Ramsey Medal, and the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology. Among his many influential publications are the seminal texts Games and Decisions (1957) and Individual Choice Behavior (1959), both of which remain in widespread academic use. His pioneering work in game and choice theory has resulted in dramatic advances in the fields of economics and psychology, and is applied to a variety of disciplines, including the analysis and prediction of stock market fluctuations.

Professor Luce has made vital contributions to Orange County in the course of his 20 years of service at the University of California- Irvine. He first came to UCI in 1972 before leaving in 1975 to serve in a variety of positions at the forefront of mathematical research at some of the Nation's finest universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of Pennsylvania. In 1988, he returned to Irvine, where he created UCl's Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, thereby reinforcing the campus's reputation as a leader in that field. He has served on search committees for three UCI chancellors.

Mr. Speaker, I know that all of our colleagues join me in paying tribute to Dr. R. Duncan Luce. In behalf of all of us in the United States Congress, I am pleased to recognize Professor Luce's remarkable achievements, and to thank him and his family for all that they have given to the improvement of learning and the betterment of our society.

Mr. Chairman, several provisions in this legislation are of particular interest to the Committee on Homeland Security.

First, this spending bill will be procedurally consolidated with the REAL ID Act, which the House approved 261-161 on February 10, 2005. We cannot effectively fight terrorism if we cannot verify the identity of people boarding airplanes, entering nuclear power plants, visiting the White House, or gaining access to any of the countless places a terrorist could use as a stage to multiply the effect of an attack. Accurate identification of individuals before permitting them access to critical infrastructure is a prerequisite to success.

The failure to ensure the integrity of identification documents that can be legally used to access critical infrastructure means that the entire process of checking IDs is deeply flawed. Likewise, the time and effort of every law abiding citizen who waits in seemingly endless lines, first to obtain and then to present identification, is wasted. Document fraud is a crime against all Americans who must tolerate the indignity of life in a post-9/11 world. Why must honest Americans prove who we are, again and again, if terrorists and criminals are free to make a hash of this requirement?

Five weeks ago, the House approved the REAL ID Act, just as we did in the 108th Congress. In so doing, we responded to the challenge put before us by Mir Aimal Kansi, who slaughtered five people at CIA headquarters; by Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the first World Trade Center attack; and by several of the 9/11 hijackers who would have found it far more difficult, if not impossible, to carry out their terror attacks had we prevented them from using false identification.

This spending bill also contains funding to secure our borders. To secure our nation from nuclear attack, the legislation includes $55 million to detect nuclear material at foreign ports. The Megaports Initiative is designed to interdict illicit traffic in nuclear and other radioactive materials. By surveilling container shipping at high volume, high risk overseas ports, and by deploying radiation detection devices at our own ports of entry, America's counter-terrorism strategy can succeed in a comprehensive defense of the global supply chain.

This bill also provides $38.97 million for the Terrorist Screening Center. This multi-agency homeland security effort is responsible for supporting the Department of Homeland Security's effort to screen passengers on both domestic and international flights. This new funding will help the TSC to handle new requirements, such as the Department of Homeland Security's Secure Flight Program.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Before I address the substance of this amendment, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the co-author of this amendment, for working so diligently over the last several days to craft the language we are debating on the floor today. He has been at the forefront of bringing the issue of consumer protection in towing, which is what this amendment is about, to the attention of the Congress.

The legislation that he introduced last Congress, which he has reintroduced as H.R. 1173 in the 109th Congress, properly has focused attention on a program that is frustrating local government officials and police personnel charged with protecting public safety and especially our constituents, ordinary citizens.

I would especially like to thank the chairman and the professional staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who bent over backwards to work with us to put together this good amendment. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), and the gentleman from Oregon (Ranking Member DeFazio) all provided us with excellent support in crafting this amendment.

More than anyone, I should like to thank Bob McDonell, the chief of police in the city of Newport Beach, California. He has been vigilant in seeking reform to protect the citizens of California from what we have come to know as predatory towing.

For several years, Chief McDonell has worked to build public awareness about this issue. He educated me about this issue and about the current state of the law, and he offered the suggestions for reform that are the subject of this amendment today. Chief McDonell and other law enforcement personnel in Orange County have had to deal with road tow truck operators who are ripping off ordinary consumers by exploiting a loophole in Federal law.

In California, in particular, a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000 has called into question two provisions of our State law that are designed to help local communities protect public safety by ensuring that tow truck operators who tow vehicles parked on private property do so with both the written authorization of the owner of the property on which the trespass is occurring and with the owner or an agent of the owner being present at the time of the tow. These important safeguards protect the rights of property owners to remove trespassing vehicles, and they also ensure that the decisions are clearly made with the knowledge and participation of the private property owners.

Although there is a decision of the California Supreme Court upholding these provisions of California law, the conflict between the State and Federal decisions has left the practical effect of the law in limbo. It has made the law essentially unenforceable.

This problem, Mr. Chairman, was put in stark relief just last week when the Orange County district attorney's office announced that they would not prosecute a tow truck operator who was in such a hurry to tow a vehicle before the owner returned that he towed a car with a sleeping 4-year-old child in the back seat.

According to the story in the Orange County Register, the deputy district attorney said that the Ninth Circuit decision was hampering her prosecution saying, ``The towing companies are able to flagrantly violate the California Vehicle Code, and we cannot prosecute that until the Federal law is changed.''

What we have the opportunity to do with this amendment is to make the necessary change. The problem is not just in Orange County; it is in northern Virginia where the co-author resides. It is in many communities across the country. A few bad apples in the towing industry are wreaking havoc, endangering citizens and compromising public safety.

The vast majority of tow truck operators and their companies are good public citizens. They work hard. And they work cooperatively with private property owners. They assist law enforcement. The reputation of these good citizens in this industry everywhere is soiled by the actions of a few rogue operators who are able to operate outside the law.

This amendment is merely designed to allow States to ensure that the bad apples come back within the reach of the law and that the confusion that has been prompted by the courts in California, the Federal court, which has compromised our State's ability to protect its citizens, is clarified.

I know that this amendment does not resolve all of the problems that the co-author, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has with predatory towers, and I look forward to working with him and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on this issue further as we head to conference should this amendment be accepted.

As we consider whether any further refinements are needed, however, we must be mindful that, in the main, deregulation has been a huge success for the industry and for consumers. So in our desire to ensure that States can properly carry out their Constitutional function to protect public safety and to protect consumers, we need to be careful that we not return to the status quo ante which would expose the industry and consumers to a miasma of confusing and conflicting State, county and municipal ordinances that neither protect public safety nor our pocketbooks and, instead, breed inefficiency and lead to increased costs for consumers.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure that the proper balance is maintained.

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

Mr. Speaker, Tillie Fowler was a giant in this Congress. Though she served only four terms, 100 percent faithful to her pledge to limit her service in this House, she rose to our elected leadership, and she kept us focused on national security as our highest priority. She was called the Steel Magnolia because she was a hybrid of a southern belle and a marine drill sergeant. She was best known for her roles on the Committee on Armed Services and in the House leadership where she consistently was the voice of the military, calling for a defense

budget and defense resources always sufficient to keep America strong.

It was Tillie's intellect and her willingness to work across the aisle that advanced her to a preeminent position as vice chairwoman of the House Republican Conference and as a deputy minority whip for 6 years. I worked with Tillie in our House leadership and on the House Policy Committee and on such special projects as the Speaker's Working Group on Russia.

Today, as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I miss Tillie Fowler more than ever because nowhere was her national leadership more in evidence than in her work toward terrorism preparedness. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, her top priority was the country's preparedness for a domestic terror attack. She found overlap inadequacies among the Federal agencies, the many agencies that were responsible in those days for terrorism preparedness, and she tried to fix it.

A year and a half before 9/11, she drafted the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000. If we had followed her farsighted advice, the Congress would have placed top priority on elevating and consolidating the Federal Government's anti-terrorism efforts by creating a Presidential Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness. Tillie's legislation was not passed in the 106th Congress, but we soon came to realize through the tragic events of 9/11 that her focus and her proposed reforms were vitally necessary. As a result, many of her recommended reforms are included in what is now law, the Homeland Security Act.

She was truly the guardian angel of our national security. Tillie Fowler, our friend and colleague, dedicated her life to her community and our Nation. It was an honor to serve with her, and it will be an honor to carry on her work to ensure that America is always prepared so we may be always free. Our prayers are with her husband, Buck; with her daughters, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth; and with her entire family.

Tillie Fowler was a giant in this Congress. Though she served only four terms--100 percent faithful to her pledge to limit her service in this House--she rose to the Leadership of our ranks, and kept us focused on our national security as our highest priority.

She was called the ``Steel Magnolia''--because she was a hybrid of a Southern belle and a Marine drill sergeant.

She was best known for her roles on the Armed Services Committee and in the House Leadership, where she was consistently the voice of the military, calling for a defense budget sufficient to ensure a strong America.

It was Tillie's intellect, and willingness to work across the aisle, that advanced her to a preeminent position of leadership as Vice Chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, and as a deputy majority whip for six years.

I had the wonderful opportunity to serve with Tillie in the elected Leadership, on the House Policy Committee, and on such vital national security projects as the Speaker's Advisory Group on Russia.

Today, as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I miss Tillie Fowler more than ever, because nowhere was her national leadership more in evidence than in her work toward terrorism preparedness.

As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, her top priority was the country's preparedness for a domestic terrorist attack. She found overlap and inadequacies among the several federal agencies with jurisdiction over terrorism preparedness, and she tried to fix it.

A year and a half before 9/11, she drafted the ``Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000.'' If we had followed her far sighted advice, the Congress would have placed top priority on elevating and consolidating the federal government's anti-terrorism efforts by creating a Presidential Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness.

Tillie's legislation was not passed in the 106th Congress, but we soon came to realize--through the tragic events of 9/11--that her focus and her proposed reforms were vitally necessary. As a result, many of her proposed reforms were included in the Homeland Security Act, which is now law. She was truly the guardian angel of our national security.

Tillie Fowler, my friend and colleague, dedicated her life to her community and her nation. It was an honor to serve with her, and it will be an honor to carry on her work to ensure that America is always prepared, so that we may be always free.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. And I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for bringing this resolution to the floor today.

The former prime minister of Lebanon, who died so tragically, was a visionary for his country, for the region, for the world. He was an entrepreneur who understood the importance of markets and a free economy to the future of Lebanon and the future of the Middle East. He was a philanthropist, who, from his personal fortune, personally paid for so many to be educated both in this country and around the world, with only one condition, that they come back to Lebanon and help build a free democratic society there.

His murder on Tuesday in Beirut was a loss for Lebanon to be sure, for the Middle East as well, but also for the international community, for everyone in the world who loves freedom and democracy. We are gathered today to honor his memory and to call for the swift pursuit and punishment of those responsible. More importantly, we are here to do justice to Mr. Hariri's dreams of a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon.

I first met Rafik Hariri during a visit to Lebanon 12 years ago. He was impressive because, as someone from the private sector, he dedicated himself, at great risk in the midst of civil war, to bringing warring factions together. He was, as has been stated here, a principal architect of the Taif Accords. As prime minister, he put in place the kinds of initiatives that would make Jack Kemp proud, recognizing the power of incentives, recognizing that if people could be given reason to share the Lebanese hope that reconstruction was possible to invest their money not just from Lebanon but from around the world, that even in those horrible ashes of war, we could see spring up new entrepreneurship, new hope, and new opportunity.

His tireless work on behalf of peace in a country that was wracked by a vicious civil war and his diligent pursuit of freedom and independence for his countrymen, all at great risk to himself and to his family, was always inspiring. His broader work to open the Middle East to enterprise and economic prosperity should serve as an example to people throughout the Middle East and around the world that the path to prosperity requires free minds and free markets. It is time that we help bring his dreams to fruition.

I had the opportunity to meet more recently, in December of 2003, with President Basheer Assad of Syria; and I shared with him our concerns, our American concerns, about the continued military occupation in Lebanon which Rafik Hariri worked diligently to bring to an end.

Mr. Hariri's funeral in part turned into a protest against the continued Syrian occupation. The 200,000 people participating in the procession make it clear to the rest of us around the world that those in Lebanon, just as we here in America and in nations around the world, deserve the right to self-determination. For 25 years Lebanon and its people have been denied this freedom.

This resolution honors a great leader of Lebanon whose principles are, first of all, fundamentally consonant with Lebanon and the Lebanese spirit and culture, but, second and equally importantly, completely consonant with what we every day in this United States Congress fight for for our fellow Americans and for people around the world.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to honor Mr. Hariri and to support the people of Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, I submit the Rules of Procedure for the Committee on Homeland Security for printing in the Congressional Record. On February 9, 2005, the Committee adopted these rules by a voice vote, with a quorum present.

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

I am happy to join this debate as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and welcome the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my ranking member.

We are here because each day thousands of people illegally enter the United States. They know where to cross. They know how to get a driver's license. And if they are caught, they even know how to rig our legal system to stay in the country nonetheless. What has been the result of this broken system?

On January 25, 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi stood at the entrance of the Central Intelligence Agency and gunned down five people. A month later Ramzi Yousef masterminded the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Both men were in the country because they were awaiting the outcome of their asylum applications. This legislation will fix that loophole.

On September 11, 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the 19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between them 13 U.S. driver's licenses and 21 state-issued ID cards. Several of these hijackers had overstayed their visas, and they were unlawfully in this country. But their driver's licenses permitted them to board those airplanes nonetheless. This bill fixes that problem.

The laws that we are operating under today allow terrorists to enter our country and to plan and carry out attacks in the United States. The reality is that this homeland security vulnerability is being exploited by terrorists and criminal aliens every day. H.R. 418 makes necessary changes to ensure that terrorists do not obtain identification, as did the 9/11 hijackers, that will permit them to board airplanes or access Federal facilities or easily travel within the United States.

The most literal security gap that this bill addresses is the 3-mile hole in the San Diego border fence. Recent press accounts have reported that al Qaeda operatives have joined forces with human smuggling rings in order to enter the United States. As we now know, the 9/11 hijackers were interviewed 25 times by U.S. consular officers; they had 43 contacts with Immigration and Customs authorities. But because of administration and congressional initiatives requiring the screening of all foreign nationals entering the United States, terrorists will be forced to resort to crossing our borders illegally. The border security fence, therefore, which thus far has been mired in bureaucratic delays, is part of our national security efforts and must be completed now.

For decades the border between San Diego and Mexico has been the preferred corridor for entry into the United States by unknown or undocumented persons. With highly populated cities both north and south of the border as well as relatively quick access to national transportation hubs such as LAX, it is the perfect place for aliens to slip across the border and gain quick access to U.S. communities and transportation networks. The important infrastructure assets in the area, including in particular the largest naval base on the west coast of the United States and the busiest seaport in the United States, makes securing this area even more important.

From September through November, 2004, the border patrol apprehended over 23,000 individuals with criminal records including 84 wanted for murder and 151 wanted for sexual assault. In 2004 border patrol agents arrested almost 1.2 million illegal aliens with 11.6 percent of those apprehended in the San Diego sector alone, despite the fact that the San Diego sector is roughly 1 percent of our border area. Over the past 2 years, the three border patrol stations responsible for patrol of the existing 14 miles of border fence in the San Diego sector have apprehended approximately 200 special interest aliens annually from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey.

Completion of this fence will not only reduce the number of illegal crossings in the area but will also allow the Border Patrol to redeploy manpower and redirect precious resources to other important homeland security missions along the border. And like the other border fence areas, the San Diego sector can expect to see a reduction in crime, including murder, as well.

Of the 14 miles authorized by Congress several times, 9 miles of the triple fence have been completed. But only in Washington would people construct a fence with a big hole in it. The final 3\1/2\ miles has been held up due to bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits. The border patrol has worked to alleviate the environmental concerns that have been raised. In fact, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in July, 2003, that construction of the fence ``is not likely to jeopardize'' the continued existence of any relevant endangered species in the area. Furthermore, not completing the fence will continue to cause other environmental damage in the area due to large numbers of persons crossing illegally through this area and subsequent pursuit by the border patrol, as well as large amounts of trash and refuse left in the wake of smugglers and illegal crossers.

As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and a California resident, I am extremely concerned by the roadblocks that different bureaucratic groups have used to justify thwarting this important project. For example, in September of 2003, the San Diego Border Patrol requested entry to a section of county-owned land located in the 3\1/2\ mile section in dispute and located about 300 feet from the U.S.- Mexican border in order to, first, improve the road for safety of the border patrol agents; and, two, take soil samples in order to address environmental concerns pertaining to construction of the fence.

But the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation denied access, saying there was no authority to enter upon the land.

After months of negotiation, I have been told that the issue was finally resolved, but this clearly demonstrates that Federal action is necessary to ensure that the fence is completed and that border security remains a priority. The time for delay and bureaucratic obstruction is over. We must complete this fence, and we must pass H.R. 418.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be extended for 1 additional minute, to be divided equally between majority and minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Clerk on rollcall No. 2 I was in consultation with the leadership staff outside the chamber and was therefore not present when my name was called. Had I been present I would have voted for J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois as Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Californian. Kathy Tavoularis is retiring from her position as the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Orange County, where she has directed the day-to-day operations of the county Republican Central Committee for over a decade.

Kathy began her involvement with the county party as a college intern in 1991, and was hired in 1993 as Office Director.

Kathy represents so much of the diversity that makes Orange County such a lively and interesting place. She was born in Montreal, Quebec in 1970 to George and Maria, who had emigrated to Canada 10 years earlier from Greece. She grew up outside of Chicago, Illinois and became a life-long fan of the Chicago Cubs and the Chicago Bears. Kathy is fluent in Greek and conversational in Quebecois French from her days in Canada. She has also traveled extensively in Europe.

She graduated from California State University, Long Beach, earning a B.A. in Political Science, with an emphasis in Politics and Policy Formation. Kathy worked three jobs at once to pay her way through college and received her degree after only 3 years.

Kathy has been a dedicated member of the Orange County Republican Women Federated, the Orange County Young Republicans, an appointed Member of the California Republican Party, and has worked at the 1996, 2000 and 2004 Republican National Conventions.

Kathy regularly attends St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church in Anaheim, where she is active in Bible Study and Early Church History Classes.

On behalf of my colleagues, let me join the many friends, co-workers and admirers in wishing Kathy Tavoularis nothing but the best in her future endeavors. She leaves behind an enormously positive legacy for the residents of Orange County, local community leaders, and in helping to make Orange County ``the most Republican county'' in America.