Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2007, I was participating in an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and inadvertently missed 1 recorded vote.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 1093.

Mr. Speaker, after my oversight trips to Iraq in July and August of 2006, I concluded we needed to encourage the Iraqi government, and specifically Prime Minister Maliki, to take stronger action to improve the situation in their country, and that the best way to do this was to set firm timelines for Iraqi security forces to replace our troops who are doing police work.

I believe a workable timeline will incentivize the Iraqis to make the hard choices necessary to ensure stability among the three primary sects--Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. We need to motivate the Iraqis to set firm deadlines for provincial elections, reconciliation and amnesty, and a final drafting of their constitution.

During 2005, Iraqis set timelines to establish and ratify a constitution and hold national elections. They accomplished each benchmark successfully. I do not believe they would have achieved this success if we had not pushed Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to resolve their differences and compromise in order to meet the timelines we helped set.

The United States went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, with two- thirds of the House and three-quarters of the Senate voting to authorize the use of force. I believe we need to draw down the majority of our troops on a bipartisan basis, and have sought to achieve bipartisan solutions to improve our operations and reduce the violence.

While H.R. 4156 is by no means a perfect solution, it does propose a tight, but arguably reasonable, timeline for drawdown of troops in Iraq similar to one I proposed earlier this year. It should help bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats on the most important issue of our time. The bill would require our commanders to begin a redeployment of our troops in harms way within a month, and set a target date of December 15, 2008, to complete the task.

For me, a better bill would have been to give Iraqis and our troops an additional six months to complete the drawdown, but given this bill sets a target date, rather than a withdrawal date, it gives needed flexibility to our military leadership.

I do not believe we have the force structure to maintain the number of troops in Iraq now, and certainly do not have the capacity to increase the force.

Our troops have performed extraordinarily well, but it is unreasonable for us to ask them to return to Iraq for a third or fourth tour. I also believe it was a significant mistake to extend

their tours from 12 to 15 months and would be unconscionable to consider extending their tours beyond 15 months. Based on our military's current manpower, we will need to begin to draw down our forces by the beginning of 2008, and it would be wise to let the Iraqis know now this reduction will take place.

While I support this bill, I am disappointed the majority still has not allowed a single amendment on any Iraq-related bill. As I have said before, it is pretty arrogant to think we would criticize Iraqis for not being able to compromise and find common ground when Republicans and Democrats are unable to compromise and find common ground on the most important issue facing our Nation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 122, introduced by Jay Inslee of Washington State, a resolution supporting the goal and mission of America Recycles Day.

November 15, 2007, marks the 10th anniversary of this nationally recognized day dedicated to encouraging Americans to recycle and buy recycled products. This bill expresses support for this day of recognition, and encourages all of us to participate in promoting the social, environmental, and economic benefits of recycling and buying recycled-content products.

America Recycles Day informs millions of Americans about the importance of daily recycling and asks us to commit ourselves to increasing our recycling habits at home and at work.

Across the country, the National Recycling Coalition organizes community awareness and education campaigns about the benefits of recycling, and volunteers work with communities and schools to organize recycling awareness events in conjunction with their local municipalities.

Recycling is one of the easiest ways anyone can work to improve the world we live in on a daily basis. Recycling saves energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

The EPA estimates that recycling a ton of mixed recyclables avoids emissions equivalent to 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide. Today there are more than 10,000 curbside recycling programs in the United States, which serve approximately half of the population.

These programs are also good for our economy. Recycling is a $236 billion a year industry, and more than 56,000 recycling and reuse enterprises employ 1.1 million workers.

I believe we should increase our recycling for ourselves and future generations because we simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. Recycling and buying recycled products create demand for more recycled products, decreasing waste, protecting our natural resources, and helping our environment and economy.

America Recycles Day asks that we pledge ourselves to recycle and buying recycled products, and I strongly urge support of this resolution and the recognition that this is not just a resolution about nothing. It is about something very important. It's about getting us, as human beings, to think about wasting less and economizing and helping to save our planet in the process.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1593, I am pleased we are considering this legislation today.

The fact is this bill will save taxpayers money by breaking the expensive cycle of sending people back to prison. This bill authorizes $65 million in fiscal year 2008 for Department of Justice, DoJ, grants to boost programs that provide newly released prisoners with housing, drug treatment, counseling, job training and literacy and education services.

The bill would improve residential drug treatment programs and follow-up care, and would expand family-based treatment centers. It would also authorize the Bureau of justice Statistics to study substance abusers' re-entry into society.

Our goal needs to be helping offenders successfully re-enter society. According to DoJ statistics, nearly two-thirds of those released from prison are likely to be re-arrested within 3 years. This is troubling, but the good news is Congress has recognized the problem and is implementing an innovative strategy to address it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the PROTECT Our Children Act, I am grateful we are considering this legislation today.

This legislation will create a Special Counsel within the Department of Justice, DoJ, to design and organize the Departments child exploitation prosecution work.

The bill will also establish grants to inrease the number of Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, agents dedicated to protecting children and ensure local authorities have funding available to create vigorous cyber units with well-trained officers.

Having a child exploited is a parent's worst fear. This legislation will, strengthen our police force to ensure we can track down and imprison child sex predators.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the text of the bill in favor of creating a blue ribbon commission to develop a full array of policy options that Congress could pursue to address the concerns of insurance affordability and availability in disaster-prone areas of our country.

I introduced this language as a freestanding bill on a bipartisan basis with my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). It would bring together 16 of the country's leading experts on catastrophe-related issues who would be tasked with studying the issue in depth, gathering information from a host of constituencies affected by natural disasters and then reporting back to Congress with specific and detailed recommendations for legislative, regulatory, administrative or other actions to improve the natural catastrophe insurance marketplace.

The idea of this commission was originated by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, the senior Senator from Connecticut, Senator Christopher Dodd. Just before the August recess, Senate Banking Committee reported a bill out of committee unanimously creating the Commission, and I hope it will be considered on the Senate floor soon. I would like to highlight a few of the duties we will task the committee with examining. The full list of duties is found on page 7 of my amendment in section 5.

We will ask the Commission to consider the current condition of, as well as the outlook for, the availability and affordability of insurance and reinsurance for natural catastrophes in all regions of the United States not just in some; the current ability of States, communities and individuals to mitigate their natural catastrophe risks, including the affordability and feasibility of such activities; the benefits and costs of a national, regional or other pooling mechanism designed to provide adequate insurance coverage and increase the underwriting capacity to insurers and reinsurers; the need for strengthening land use regulations and building codes in States at high risk for natural catastrophes; and the appropriate role, if any, for the Federal Government in stabilizing the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance markets and the role of the Federal, State and local governments in providing incentives for feasibility risk mitigation efforts.

We have heard a host of arguments already today on the merits and drawbacks of the underlying bill proposed by my colleague from Florida. I happen to believe the underlying bill is an overreach that could potentially expose taxpayers to massive liabilities. I am mostly concerned about encouraging States to create qualifying State insurance funds which are likely to further crowd out the private marketplace.

It seems to me there exists a happy medium between those who have total confidence in the private marketplace to correct problems in the insurance market and those who believe the Federal Government must intervene to set the market right.

We should not underestimate the weight of our decisions to move forward with the underlying bill. Inserting the Government's hand into the insurance marketplace threatens to disrupt the interrelationship of risk mitigation; threatens to disrupt population growth and economic development in vulnerable regions; threatens to disrupt private insurance and reinsurance markets for catastrophic risk management; threatens to disrupt insurance rate regulation, and threatens to disrupt the role of State-run catastrophic insurance mechanisms which are only beginning to be systematically examined.

Rather than rushing to vote on the underlying bill, I believe Congress should tap the growing body of knowledge and expertise that is now just coming together.

The bottom line is there are several proposals that have merit, and each would benefit from the kind of rigorous objective study that an impartial commission of experts could provide.

I believe this amendment is a measured approach, an approach supported by the Senate, at least the committee, and urge my colleagues to support the creation of a commission on natural catastrophic risk management and insurance in lieu of the current proposal.

I also want to point out that the existing bill, besides likely not being supported by the Senate, has a veto threat

by the President because of the massive liabilities and the incredible disruption that this legislation may cause the insurance marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

I want to say to my colleagues from Florida that I would probably be saying the same things they are if I was from Florida. And I would say them with all the sincerity that you are saying them and I would attack any proposals that took a different position.

First, we are capable in this Chamber of acting quickly. I do agree with my colleagues that it has been a number of years that we have done nothing. I don't agree that we have had the kind of study that we need and the kind of study that you would see in my proposal.

But what I would also say, for whatever it's worth, not that it's going to change votes, but I want to go on record that if such a study is ultimately passed because of the Senate, even if this Chamber doesn't pass my amendment, that I will go out of my way to fight for a bill to deal with this issue next year. That is just a commitment I want to put on the record because I don't think we can continue to wait.

What concerns me is I feel like in an effort to deal with the very real problem of Florida, we are going to screw things up for 49 other States, or 40, or 35, and that we are going to do something that a lot of Members don't want

to do and that is create huge liabilities for the Federal Government.

I am not suggesting that this is a perfect solution. My problem is I think the bill that is being promulgated by the Florida delegation is fatally flawed. I think if there was a study, we would come back with a proposal that would have similarities to this legislation, but not so negatively impacting the rest of the country and not providing the kind of potential liabilities to the tax payers.

I do respect what my colleagues from Florida are saying. I think they are fighting for their constituencies. But I think those of us who aren't in Florida have an obligation to step up and voice the kind of reservations that exist elsewhere throughout the country.

Again, if this amendment fails and this bill passes as it is and is sent to the Senate and dies, or passes both Chambers and the President vetoes it so nothing happens, I will be on your side of the issue working with my Florida colleagues to deal with the issue next year.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The ACTING Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut will be postponed.

Vacating Ordering of Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 15

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (or ENDA) is a common-sense solution to a very serious problem in the workplace. It:

Prohibits employers from making decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or compensating an employee based on sexual orientation;

Makes clear that preferential treatment and quotas are strictly prohibited, and that no claims will be permitted based on statistics about gays and lesbians in the workforce.

Until the 109th Congress, ENDA had been reintroduced in every Congress since 1994.

Our staff members' sexual orientation is no business of ours, and is irrelevant to their ability to perform the job.

One frequent objection to ENDA is that it would extend ``special rights'' to homosexuals.

That is simply not the case.

Gays and lesbians don't want special rights, they want the same as other Americans: equal protection under the law.

And they deserve no less.

ENDA supporter and former senator Barry Goldwater wrote: There was no gay exemption in the right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Job discrimination against gays--or anybody else--is contrary to each of these founding principles. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn't about granting special rights it's about protecting basic rights.

Paul Allaire, the former Chairman of the Board of Directors for Xerox, which is headquartered in Stamford, recognized the importance of non-discrimination policies when he wrote: We view diversity awareness and acceptance as enablers to increased productivity. We strive to create an atmosphere where all employees are encouraged to contribute to their fullest potential. Fear of reprisals on the basis of sexual orientation only serves to undermine that goal.

When ENDA is passed--a process that may take some time--working Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian will only have to prove themselves in the workplace and the employment market on the basis of their talents and abilities, just like other Americans.

They will be able to do so without fear of dismissal for any reason unrelated to the workplace.

Offered By: Mr. Shays

Amendment No. 5:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, which requires hardrock mining companies to pay the government royalties for their operations on federal land.

Currently, the General Mining Law of 1872 allows mining companies to stake claims on public lands without paying royalties to the government. Claimholders are able to purchase public lands where their mines are located for as little as $2.50 an acre.

The bottom line is that there is no good reason that hardrock mining companies should be exempt from royalties for using land that belongs to all Americans. It is time we treat the hardrock mining industry just as we do coal, oil, and gas companies who operate on public lands.

For example, miners of coal on public lands pay 8 percent on underground deposits and 12.5 percent on surface deposits. Drillers of oil and natural gas pay 8 percent to 16.7 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1 billion in hardrock minerals are extracted annually from federal lands. Under this bill, future mine operations would pay an 8 percent royalty and existing mines would pay a 4 percent royalty. It would also end the ``patenting'' practice, allows claimholders to purchase public lands where their mines are located for as little as $2.50 an acre.

The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has identified hardrock mining as a leading source of toxic pollution in the United States.

According to the EPA, it will cost approximately $50 billion to clean up abandoned hardrock mines, and 40 percent of the headwaters of western watersheds have been polluted by mining.

Mining practices have changed since 1872. Today, mining companies often dig holes over one mile in diameter and 1,000 feet deep, using cyanide and other chemicals to extract metals from tons of low-grade ore. These chemicals and the toxic metals they dissolve from the rocks can leach into water sources. Acid mine drainage filled with heavy metals is difficult and expensive to clean up. When spills occur, taxpayers bear the brunt of cleaning them up.

The royalties collected under this bill would be directed towards much needed environmental protection measures. Two-thirds of the royalties, fees, and penalties paid by hardrock mining companies would help to mitigate the harmful effects of past mining activities on water supplies and public health. The funds would be used to restore land, water, and wildlife harmed by mining, and to clean up the abandoned mines and toxic waste materials.

The remaining one-third would go to assist states and localities impacted by hardrock mining to provide public facilities and services.

H.R. 2662 also expands the types of land on which mining would be prohibited to include wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and certain roadless areas in national forests, adding necessary protections to some of our national treasures.

H.R. 2262 brings much needed reforms to hardrock mining operations. The bill ends priority status for mining interests, and ensures that mining on public lands takes place in a manner that protects taxpayers and the environment, and I urge its support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to eventually ask for a moment of silence for a Member of this Chamber who has passed away; that's Thomas Meskill. He was in the U.S. Air Force and in Korea for 3 years. He was the former mayor of New Britain, Connecticut. He was a Member of Congress for two terms in the Sixth District. He was Governor of the State of Connecticut, and he was judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. He was, for a period of time, the chief judge. He was clearly a distinguished member of Connecticut, a very respected elected official, but was most respected for his service as a judge in the Court of Appeals for 30 years.

Before asking for a moment of silence, I would like to yield to Mr. Larson, who wanted to make sure that this House recognized this distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as we rise in silence, if we could remember his wife, Mary; his two daughters, Maureen and Eileen; his three sons, John, Peter, and Thomas; and his seven grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, on October 29, 2007, I missed 3 recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 1010, ``yea'' on recorded vote 1011 and ``yea'' on recorded vote 1012.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which I refer to as the Harman-Reichert bill. I appreciate that they have worked so well together on a bipartisan basis.

I like the fact that this legislation creates a 10-member national commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, to study violent radicalization and ideologically based terrorism in these United States.

Before September 11 we had the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission. They all told us the same basic point, that we have a terrorist threat and we need to recognize that threat, that we need a strategy to deal with this threat, and that we need to reorganize our government to implement the strategy.

Then came September 11, and we did wake up somewhat. We reorganized our government and created the Department of Homeland Security. We passed the PATRIOT Act. We reorganized our intelligence agencies and created a Director of Intelligence. And we are reforming the FISA law, but this is still an issue we are working with.

The 9/11 Commission did something very courageous. They didn't say we are confronting terrorism; they said we are confronting Islamist terrorists who would do us harm. I think it is absolutely important we pass this legislation to begin to know the effects of radical terrorism spreading throughout the entire world and working its way into the United States.

I believe with all my heart and soul that we have a level of recognition of the threat that pales in comparison to what the true threat is. I think this legislation will help awaken us a bit and help awaken others within our country that this threat must be dealt with.

We have a lot of issues that are important for our country to deal with, but our homeland security is on the top of the list. I urge passage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Today, we're here to consider a resolution about corruption in Iraq. Mr. Davis attempted to present an alternative to the resolution, but it was blocked by my Democratic colleagues. The Democratic version provides a one-sided view about corruption in Iraq and Department of State efforts to counter corruption. The other version by Mr. Davis accepted the Democratic points but also presented the rest of the story. Whatever happened to compromise and bipartisanship?

It never ceases to amaze me what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do to get votes and keep the support of their base. We all know the Democratic base wants the United States to get out of Iraq; however, the Democrats have not been able to prevent President Bush from carrying out his new and winning strategy in Iraq, so they continue to try to find other means to undermine our efforts to stabilize Iraq.

For example, they've held hearings on Blackwater, the contractor accused of shooting into crowds of civilians. Although this oversight is justified and needed, my colleagues are using the results of this hearing as a tool to drive a wedge between the American people and the administration's efforts to stabilize Iraq.

Another example is the resolution condemning the Armenian genocide. The Democrats know full well, if this resolution passes the House, Turkey will take retaliatory steps against the United States. These steps could undermine our efforts in Iraq and our troop presence throughout the Middle East. In fact, Turkey has already begun the process and called their U.S. ambassador back to Turkey for consultation.

And now we have a resolution about corruption in Iraq. What a revelation! Yes, there is corruption in Middle Eastern countries. Yes, there has been corruption in Iraq. And yes, there continues to be corruption in a

postauthoritarian regime. The United States did not bring corruption to this country, nor will it end when we leave. Saddam Hussein and his bureaucratic henchmen were major contributors to that continued corruption. Just read the reports about the Oil-for-Food Program our committee conducted.

Is the Department of State remiss in their efforts to fight corruption in Iraq? They may well be. But countering long-standing corruption is not easy and will take some time. I believe we in the United States face some of the same problems.

I'm not asking for my Democratic colleagues to stop oversight ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse. What I am asking is for Democrats and Republicans to come together and work through the issue of Iraq and not use it as a wedge preventing the United States from assisting the Iraqis to establish a stable democratic regime that will not export terrorism.

Yes, there are those who believe Iraq is a lost cause. Senator Reid and Nancy Pelosi both believe we should withdraw our troops right away. But there are others who understand the international security consequences of leaving Iraq precipitously and believe we should withdraw our presence in a safe and responsible manner.

Therefore, I ask those who truly understand the consequences of undermining our efforts in Iraq to understand what my Democratic colleagues are doing. Sadly they are trying to drive a wedge between the American public and the administration efforts to be successful in Iraq. Please understand that attempts to undermine our efforts in Iraq undermine our troops and U.S. interests all over the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act, which extends the current moratorium to November 2011. I would be inclined to support further extending the moratorium if legislation is brought to the House floor for my consideration, and in the past have voted to permanently bar taxation.

The purpose of the moratorium is to prevent the thousands of overlapping tax jurisdictions across our Nation from laying claim to a piece of the Internet. Some have argued that States will lose revenue if they are not allowed to tax the Internet, but this is a false assumption.

The fact is the Internet economy is generating tremendous tax revenue for State and local governments. Extending this moratorium will help sustain our Nation's economic growth. At the same time, making Internet access more affordable will help reduce what is commonly known as ``the digital divide.''

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, I am pleased to support this legislation on the House floor today.

I support this bill because I believe news reporting fosters public awareness of important public issues and is an important means of ensuring government accountability.

This legislation would create criteria that must be met before a Federal entity may subpoena a member of the news media in any government, criminal or civil case.

H.R. 2102 closely follows existing Department of Justice guidelines for issuing subpoenas to members of the news media.

It simply makes the guidelines mandatory and provides protection against compelled disclosure of confidential sources.

In doing so, I believe this legislation strikes a balance between the public's need for information and the fair administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.