Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first, I'd like to thank the 9/11 families for their work on this legislation, their faith in their country, their love for their country. During the debate on the rule, I had to walk out, it was getting so partisan. So I want to thank Steny Hoyer for bringing us back to a sound basis for debate and appreciation that this is a bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution.

Next, I want to thank former chairman Peter King for his outstanding work as chairman, never making this a partisan issue, and to Chairman Bennie Thompson for their work on a bipartisan basis on this legislation.

As co-Chair of the 9/11 Caucus with Carolyn Maloney, we fought hard in the previous Congress to pass the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/ 11 Commission Report Act, which this legislation is based on. I appreciate the fact that this majority has finally brought this legislation to completion and they should be congratulated.

I particularly want to thank Carolyn Maloney for her work helping to create a Department of Homeland Security, her work to help create the 9/11 Commission, her work to help create a Director of Intelligence, and her work now on this legislation, which, frankly, she is not getting enough credit for. She worked on this for a long period of time.

There are many provisions in this bill that we should be proud of: the risk-based grants; the John Doe provisions; the interoperability grants; the intelligence and information sharing; the rail, bus and mass transit security grants; the 100 percent inspection of air cargo, which Ed Markey championed, and I was his Republican co-sponsor in this effort; and the 100 percent inspection of the maritime cargo. It is important that we do it. We will have to monitor that.

I particularly want to point out the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board work improvements that Carolyn Maloney and I particularly had legislation on. This bill removes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board from the Executive Office of the President and establishes an independent agency. It grants subpoena power to the board for obtaining information. This was an important provision.

The critical infrastructure provision and the private sector preparedness, the whistle-blower protections. Congratulations, Mr. Thompson and Mr. King on the legislation you have worked on.

Let me conclude by saying this: There are clearly more than one inconvenient truth facing us. The one that Al Gore talks about in global warming is a real concern; it is inconvenient.

There is another inconvenient truth; it's what the 9/11 Commission talked about, and that's Islamist terrorism. This bill is a wake-up to that concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Caucus with my colleague, Representative Carolyn Maloney, I am grateful the conference report on H.R. 1, legislation to implement most of the remaining 9/11 Commission Recommendations, is on the House floor today.

This legislation will take many important--and overdue--steps toward protecting our homeland, including requiring the screening of cargo on passenger planes; improving cargo screening at our ports; strengthening the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; distributing homeland security funds based on risk; and improving interoperability for first responders.

Over a year ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project graded the federal government on implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, issuing a failing, near-failing or average grade for action on 27 of their 41 recommendations.

As a result, Representative Maloney and I introduced the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report Act, which addressed each of the recommendations and held the appropriate agency accountable for reporting to Congress on its actions.

Having worked to create the 9/11 Commission; co-chaired hearings in my National Security Subcommittee on its recommendations; pushed for enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terorism Prevention Act in 2004; and co-authored legislation to fully implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, I was grateful H.R 1 passed in early January.

This legislation takes additional steps to protect the American public, including provisions to provide civil liability protection to citizens who, in good faith, report suspicious activity that might indicate a terror attack upon our Nation's travel system and to establish an interoperable emergency communications grant program within DHS.

While there is still work to do, such as fortifying our southern border and requiring passports at our northern border, the bottom line is this legislation is an essential step forward.

It is also a testament to the work of Fourth District residents Mary and Frank Fetchet--parents of Brad; and Beverly Eckert--wife of Sean Rooney.

They along with several other family members have worked for more than 5 years to establish the commission, ensure it had the tools it needed to do its job, and pushed for enactment of these recommendations into law. I have been humbled to work with them.

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the Moses and Aaron Foundation, an organization committed to special needs children and their families. The Foundation's significant and enduring efforts, under the direction of the president, Rabbi Yaacov Kaploun, and Executive Vice President Yehuda Kaploun, deserve the highest praise, as do the philanthropists who have given so much of themselves to fulfill its mission.

The Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children, an all- volunteer organization, is dedicated to assisting children with disabilities and their families with a wide range of programs, including social, physical, financial and wheelchair assistance, as well as counseling and guidance.

It also provides scholarship funding to educational institutions; collects, purchases, and distributes clothing for children in need; provides presents to those children at holiday time or when hospitalized.

In cooperation with Bally's Fitness Centers, the Foundation has been able to establish physical fitness and therapy centers. It has also arranged for sound and musical equipment in other institutions.

On July 28, 2007, at the Sullivan County Community College in Lock Sheldrake, New York, the Moses and Aaron Foundation, under the honorary chairmanship of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, will sponsor its 11th Summer ``Chazak-Strength'' Concert honoring and paying tribute to special and outstanding children and their families. The guests of honor will be the special and outstanding children, many of whom will perform with the entertainers on stage. More than 40 organizations and schools serving the physically and mentally disabled children will be represented.

The Chazak Concert and the Moses and Aaron Foundation's other programs demonstrate a caring and compassionate concern for the quality and dignity of life of others and merit the appreciation of all who have benefited from its services.

The Moses and Aaron Foundation was founded in memory of Rabbi Dr. Maurice I. Hecht and Aaron Kaploun, both of whom led lives of exemplary community service. It is in this sentiment of communal dedication that the Moses and Aaron Foundation has devoted itself to serving the needs of a unique group in the community.

I commend the Moses and Aaron Foundation, an organization which exemplifies the generosity of spirit in our society.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pence offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act, the bill we are debating today, just an amendment before, to prohibit funds in

the bill from being used to enforce the criminal penalty provisions of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, provisions dealing with electioneering communications. This was debated and accepted by a voice vote.

It is my intention to ask that that vote be vacated so it can be part of the 2-minute voting process. And failing that, I will just ask that the vote be heard in the full Chamber, which would take 15 minutes. I am not trying to slip one by someone. I just simply want a rollcall vote on the floor of the House.

Why do I want a rollcall vote? I want a rollcall vote because the Supreme Court did not rule against the provision of Title II. It did not say that BCRA was unconstitutional as it related to Title II. Rather, it stated the provisions were unconstitutional as they applied to certain advertisements. This ruling means Title II will still be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Now, what did the campaign finance reform bill seek to do? It sought to do two things. One, it sought to prevent Members of Congress from raising money from corporations, labor unions, and unlimited sums from individuals in what we call ``hard money.''

That meant to enforce the 1907 law that banned corporate treasury money; the Tillman Act, the 1947 law banning union dues money; the Taft-Hartley Act; and the 1974 act, the Campaign Finance Reform bill, that made it clear you could not get unlimited sums from individuals. That was one part of the legislation.

The other part of the legislation attempted to deal with hard money contributions. These are monies from corporations, from unions, dues, from individuals, unlimited sums. And the way we sought to do that was we sought to do it by saying that a candidate's name mentioned 30 days before an election, a primary, and 60 days before a general election would be deemed campaign expenditures; therefore, no so-called ``soft money,'' the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations and labor unions, and it sought to say it had to be hard money contributions. So, Right to Life would have to raise $5,000 from each individual, put it in a political action committee, and it could spend unlimited sums based on whatever it raised in their PAC. For instance, the NRA, it has 4 million members, raises $10,000 from each. It could spend $40 million up to an election. It would be hard money, not soft.

And so my point is the Supreme Court has found the campaign finance law constitutional. It had a second issue looking at these election- nearing provisions, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before general legislation, and determined the case before it, the Wisconsin Right to Life case v. the FEC, was, in fact, permitted, and, therefore, the FEC needs to rewrite its regulations.

It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to ask for a rollcall vote, and let me just state again why I'm doing this.

I will ask for a rollcall vote. There will be a rollcall vote. The question is, should it be a 15-minute rollcall vote or a 2-minute rollcall vote. I would prefer it be part of the whole system.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'm asking unanimous consent that the adoption by voice of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

I think that's fair. And I would be permitted to reoffer my motion as soon as Mr. Pence or others have been consulted. May I have the right to reintroduce this?

Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw my request at this time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. Chairman, I would like to renew my unanimous consent and say to my colleagues that I have spoken to the author of the amendment, and he agrees with it. My unanimous consent is that the adoption by voice vote of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, on July 26, I was participating in a briefing on National Security and I missed the first vote.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 743.

The Kind-Flake Fairness in Farm and Food Policy amendment is one of the most remarkable developments in this Congress in years. This is real bipartisan reform in a major area of our government, agriculture.

As a Republican I have been astonished with the absolute fixation my own party has had on the Depression-era price-guarantee program. As an observer of Democrats, I have been astonished with their willingness to support a big-business-favored program.

The Kind-Flake substitute brings us into the modern age. It helps farmers, it helps consumers, it helps taxpayers. I am so proud to have the opportunity to speak in favor of it.

This bipartisan amendment would replace depression-era price guarantees with a modern revenue-based safety net developed by Department of Agriculture (USDA) experts that better protects family farmers from declines in crop prices and crop yields.

The bill also reforms our government-subsidized crop insurance program to fairly share the costs and risks of this program with crop insurance agents and companies, and gradually reduce direct payments.

The amendment invests some of these savings in new conservation, nutrition and specialty crop and minority farmer priorities.

The remaining savings are dedicated to deficit reduction of $2 billion over five years, and at least $10 billion over 10 years.

A unique coalition of members and advocacy groups from both sides of the aisle have united to advocate for these reforms to commodity programs to make them more equitable and geared toward family farms instead of a very few large and wealthy entities.

The bottom line is, we need new farm and food policies, and we have it in this Kind/Flake fairness in Form & Food Policy Amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this Fairness Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

First off, I've been listening to this debate, and I felt, candidly, that it was getting a little personal and I'm uncomfortable with that. But I'm also now uncomfortable with what was described.

I believe, and I want to be on record, since I was on this floor, that Eskimos and Native Hawaiians are a group of people no different from American Indians. They were there before we got there. And that's the way I view it.

And I think that we need to look at how we provide funding for all Native Americans, Native Eskimos, and Native Hawaiians. But I don't see their difference. I see them all collectively the same.

I oppose this amendment. I will be voting against it. But I certainly understand the right of my colleague from Georgia to introduce an amendment. And I certainly agree, though, that it should be opposed.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment today to increase the brownfields program funded at HUD by $1 million. This funding will be taken from the Department's general salaries and expenses.

I believe the brownfields program is one of the most successful programs the Federal Government has to help revitalize urban areas. These sites, typically in the heart of urban areas, lie idle because no one wants to incur the large costs associated with Superfund cleanups and the uncertainty of whether, in fact, it is a Superfund. As a result, cities are marked by abandoned buildings and vacant lots while developers construct new buildings on what was previously open space in the suburbs.

Though small, these grants serve as seed money, enabling dozens of communities to leverage millions of State and private dollars to move into the actual cleanup phase. This funding should encourage more environmental cleanup and bring about economic development of brownfield sites. By reusing brownfield sites, we are not only rebuilding blighted communities, but also targeting development in city centers and avoiding unnecessary urbanization on fringes of metropolitan areas.

Mr. Chairman, a brownfield is an abandoned, idle, or unused property where expansion of redevelopment is complicated by the presence or potential presence of contaminations. Brownfields redevelopment can benefit both private investors and the communities in which they are located. For the private sector, brownfields redevelopment can mean new business opportunities, the potential for profit on unused or underutilized properties, improve community environmental stewardship, and access to untapped urban markets.

The retail purchasing power of a central-city resident is conservatively estimated at $665 billion. Even households in those economically distressed urban neighborhoods possess $85 billion in annual retail purchasing power. Brownfields redevelopment is critical to tapping into these consumer markets.

Cities encounter many impediments to developing brownfields: the lack of necessary funding for cleanup, concerns over liability, the need for environmental assessments of properties, uncertainty over cleanup standards, unfavorable neighborhood and market conditions, land assembly issues, reluctance to invest in distressed communities due to concerns with urban social and economic conditions.

The bottom line for me is the most successful program that we have encountered in this Congress to deal with urban areas is the brownfields program. Whether it comes from EPA or whether it comes from HUD, we need to do everything we can, in my judgment, to clean up these sites and make them productive, and thereby in the end saving our greenfield sites that should stay undeveloped.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I won't ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment, which may amount to the same thing as withdrawing this amendment, but could I have a dialogue with this gentleman?

What I am hearing is that you are not saying that these dollars are now going to be in EPA. You are saying basically what is in EPA are for assessments, but not to help developers come in and start to clean up. And what I am hearing you say is that these dollars, therefore, are just being maintained at a constant amount, and that this administration is choosing not to allocate them and spend them.

Is that what I am hearing from you?

Could I ask the gentleman another question?

The $10 million that is in here, which is a smaller amount than the 25 million that used to be there a few years ago, it will be available if we can convince the Secretary of HUD to allocate these dollars to communities; is that correct?

There is money for brownfields in this legislation. I am just adding 10 percent more. But let's take my amendment out of the equation and at least have this dialogue about brownfields for my edification and for the Record. Is it your point that you are appropriating this $10 million in this budget that you have, but that you do not anticipate it will be spent?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, could I just ask is there any legal impediment if we in Congress are able to convince HUD to spend the money? This is not a trick question. This is an edification question. Is there any legal impediment to the administration's spending the $10 million that you have allocated?

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Frelinghuysen-Shays-Garrett amendment should be adopted. The big guns, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee involved in transportation and, the ranking member and the chairman of the full Transportation Committee, and the ranking member are all against it. And what they're doing is sending a message once again to the FAA that they can continue to be arrogant, that they can continue to ignore the public, that they can continue to do whatever they want as it relates clearly to safety and efficiency, but they don't have to care about anything else. They don't have to care about quality of life. They don't have to listen to anybody about quality of life, particularly as it relates to impact of noise. They can ignore us as they have continued to ignore us throughout the years.

So now what you will have in LaGuardia is planes taking off twice as often. They will veer to the left, then they will veer to the right. They will veer to the left, they will veer to the right. They won't run these planes over Long Island Sound. They will run them right over individual homes. They don't care. They don't listen. They don't give us an opportunity to speak.

I have constituents who have attended hearings, but are told, Listen to us. You can't testify.

If we want the FAA to come and allow testimony, they say we'll come to Danbury (where the planes are at 8,000 feet), but we won't come in to Stamford where they're 4,000 feet. They don't want anyone to know what they're doing. We need to pay attention to them. We need to give some authority to those in the community who have a different view . . . to those who are concerned about noise and quality of life.

I rise today in support of the [Frelinghuysen/Shays/Garrett] amendment that would prohibit funding for the Federal Aviation Administration to implement its New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign for one year until FAA Reauthorization is complete.

First, let me say I understand the FAA's desire to improve efficiency at LaGuardia, Newark, Teterboro, Philadelphia and JFK. I represent a great number of business travelers who are frustrated by long delays at many of these airports.

With that being said, however, I strongly oppose the FAA's Integrated Airspace Alternative that would route more air traffic over residential neighborshoods. Over the past few months, the FAA has zeroed in on this proposal as its preferred alternative.

Throughout this time, I have shared my concerns and the concerns of my constituents with the FAA, particularly the fact that the plan brings more planes into the region at the expense of the region's quality of life.

I am particularly disappointed the FAA has not implemented any noise mitigation strategies in the district I represent, or in many districts throughout the Northeast, despite the wide swath of land over the Fourth District that will be adversely impacted by planes flying as low as 4,000 feet.

Even though there is no mandate to consider quality of life issues, the FAA simply must not ignore the hugely negative impacts of air noise in this process.

I believe that if the FAA had to consider the quality of life impacts of the Integrated Airspace Alternative, it would never have concluded that airspace redesign was the appropriate first attempt at relieving air traffic congestion.

It seems to me there are other solutions that should be considered before implementing such a radical alternative that negatively affects so many thousands of residents throughout the Northeast.

In my judgment, a one year delay to this plan is appropriate. We are working to reauthorize the FAA this year. I am hopeful we can give the FAA authority to implement other solutions in the authorization process, and protect precious quality-of-life. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 50, the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Reauthorization Act, which reauthorizes the African Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act through 2012, and in support of H.R. 465, the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act. These conservation funds have a tremendous impact on the survival of threatened species.

The ivory and bushmeat trades, as well as competition from humans for space and resources, continue to threaten the survival of the African Elephant. Rhinos and tigers similarly fall victim to these black market trades. In addition, deforestation and overworking have had devastating impacts on Asian Elephant populations. The grants awarded through the MSCF have proven to be effective in creating nature reserves, enhancing wildlife and ecosystem management, and developing antipoaching campaigns, helping to combat the practices that endanger these species the most.

As of January, the Department of Interior had approved 280 conservation grants in 23 African countries to assist African elephants, 321 grants for rhinos and tigers, and 171 grants for Asian elephants. By using $17 million in federal funding, the African elephant program has leveraged $72 million in private matching funds, and the rhino and tiger program has generated nearly $20 million in private funds to match its federally allocated $7.8 million. The Asian elephant program has been almost as successful, leveraging $10 million in private matching funds from $7.8 million in federal funding.

H.R. 50 and H.R. 465 would reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Fund to support three important international conservation laws and help to protect these animals on a federal level. I strongly urge their support.

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 561, a resolution recognizing the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

Our resolution, which I introduced along with Chairwoman Maxine Waters and Representative Betty McCollum, acknowledges the 20th anniversary of the act, which was yesterday, July 22, and recognizes the impact Congressmen McKinney and Vento and their legislation named after them have had on homelessness.

Before reflecting on Stewart McKinney's life and the impact of his work on millions of lives across the country, I would like to express my gratitude to Chairwoman Waters and particularly Chairman Barney Frank, as well as Ranking Members Spencer Bachus and Judy Biggert, for moving this resolution to the floor. I also appreciate the work of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and the 15 other organizations that have endorsed the recognition of this anniversary.

I serve in the seat previously represented by Stewart McKinney. Stewart served as the ranking member on the House Banking Subcommittee on Housing, as well as the Committee on the District of Columbia. It was in this capacity that he became especially concerned about homelessness, particularly in our capital city.

He loved urban areas, and like our colleague Bruce Vento, he recognized homelessness is a national problem that requires a national solution. Stewart's commitment to exposing the depth of the growing problem of homelessness in the 1980s led him to contract pneumonia after sleeping on a grate outside a Federal building with D.C. area homeless.

Shortly after his death on May 7, 1987, his family, friends, and staff gathered to discuss how to continue his philosophy of caring for those who are the least able to care for themselves. They created the Stewart B. McKinney Foundation, an organization whose mission is to provide funds to care for persons with HIV who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Today, Lucie McKinney continues the work Stewart began in his memory and keeps his spirit alive in this precious foundation.

Stewart was beloved by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Reading the tributes that were offered to Stewart on the House floor on the day of his death, a rather thick book, I might add, I was struck by his colleagues' appreciation for his humanity, his warm spirit, bipartisanship, and dedication to good work. I particularly want to make reference to one colleague, former Representative Bill

Frenzel, who said, ``I remember I often asked how he could stand it for over 16 years being on the House Banking Committee, and he said, `You do not understand. It is the Housing Subcommittee that keeps me here because it is the most important thing I am doing in Congress.' ''

Let me conclude by saying the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, now known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, was first enacted in 1987 as the first major coordinated Federal response to homelessness. Passed in response to the rapid and dramatic growth of homelessness in the United States during the 1980s, the McKinney Act emphasized emergency measures, transitional measures, and long-term solutions to combat the homeless crisis.

Despite the impact of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, homelessness continues to be a pervasive problem in America. It is important Congress support a comprehensive range of programs beyond emergency food, shelter, and health care services for the homeless.

We must promote the development of affordable housing, provide supportive services to those who are homeless or in vulnerable housing situations, acknowledge and study the high rates of homelessness among our Nation's veterans, and recognize the critical role our schools play in preventing and ending homelessness among children.

On the anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Act, I want to express our sincere gratitude for the dedication and commitment of service providers who are working to end homelessness in our communities and provide emergency food, shelter, and services.

In Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, I want to commend the work of Homes for the Brave, Bridgeport; Operation Hope, Fairfield; Shelter for the Homeless, Stamford; Norwalk Emergency Shelter; Interfaith Housing Association of Westport and Weston; Families in Transition, Bridgeport; St. Luke's Lifeworks, Stamford; Prospect House, Bridgeport; and all the other organizations working to assist the homeless or those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

With the passage of this resolution, I hope my colleagues and I will endeavor to work with the same courage, dignity, and determination exemplified by Representatives McKinney and Vento to eliminate homelessness in the United States.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Frank. He made sure the bill got to the floor quickly, and I thank him for all of his good work on homeless issues as well as housing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Tom Lea, I ask Members to join me in honoring the life and accomplishments of this remarkable American. Tom Lea was a painter, muralist, illustrator, writer and war correspondent, whose work continues to captivate and inspire us today.

Born in El Paso, Texas, in 1907, he showed an early talent for art and left home to study at the Art Institute of Chicago. While this began a pattern of world travel he continued throughout his life, Tom Lea's home was always Texas and the American Southwest. His paintings capture the spirit of the West and show a vibrant life that thrives in seemingly barren land.

Lea put his education to good use as a muralist for the Works Progress Administration. His works include the award winning ``The Nesters,'' which adorns the Post Office Department Building here in Washington, and the portrait of Sam Rayburn on display in the Rayburn House Office Building, and I think on display right now in this Chamber. Additionally, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, numerous public buildings in Missouri, and educational and government facilities throughout Texas exhibit his work.

In 1942, Time magazine hired Lea to cover the war in the Pacific. Finding paint inadequate to capture the full story, Lea began his career as a novelist while on assignment. He continued writing after the war, and published six works of fiction and nonfiction, including a two-volume annotated history of the King Ranch.

Fans of his work are numerous and include President George W. Bush, who honored Lea by using a quote from an autobiography while accepting the Republican nomination for President in 2000. Shortly before his death in January of 2001, Lea had the great satisfaction of delivering one of his paintings, ``Rio Grande,'' to the President, so he could hang it in the Oval Office. The painting remains there today.

In addition to great critical acclaim, Lea's lifetime of work has earned him the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award, the United States Marine Corps Colonel John W. Thomason, Jr., Award, and the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum's Great Westerners Award.

Therefore, let us show our respect and gratitude for this great American by passing H. Res. 519 to honor the life and accomplishments of Tom Lea.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as the most distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) would like to use.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we honor the 200th anniversary of the Archdiocese of New York, an institution that has contributed to the good of the region it covers as well and the Nation in a way that people of all political and religious backgrounds can join in applauding.

Founded on April 8, 1808, the Diocese of New York has grown to over 2.5 million Catholics who are led by nearly 1,500 priests. The Diocese of New York was established with the Most Reverend R. Luke Concanen as its first bishop, and was elevated to an Archdiocese in 1850. Upon its origination, the diocese included the entire State of New York and New Jersey, an area that now covers 12 dioceses. In this vast organization, the Archdiocese of New York includes 402 parishes, 278 schools, and 3,729 charitable ministries including Catholic Charities, nursing homes, and outreach programs.

The Archdiocese of New York has been the site of three papal visits and is home to the first Cardinal Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church of America, John Cardinal McCloskey. The first American-born saint, Elizabeth Ann Seton, was a member of the archdiocese and founder of today's Catholic education parochial school system.

In commemoration of their bicentennial, the Archdiocese of New York has planned a year-long celebration of activities to bring together the entire community, including an Archdiocese of New York Day of Service.

It is with great respect for the ongoing service to their parishioners and the greater community of New York that I ask you to join in commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Archdiocese of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Staten Island, who has been a real advocate for all of New York, Vito Fossella, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd like to just make further comments.

This resolution has a special meaning to me, as the archdiocese of New York is currently under the spiritual guidance of His Eminence Edward M. Cardinal Egan, who was elevated to cardinal on February 21, 2001.

In 1988, Cardinal Egan was appointed bishop of Bridgeport by Pope John Paul II. During his tenure in Bridgeport, I had the pleasure of working with him on a variety of issues, including developing housing for senior citizens.

Cardinal Egan guided the diocese of Bridgeport and earned a reputation of demonstrated leadership and success in meeting both the physical and spiritual needs of the church's parishioners, and I want to say that he reached out to so many people, Catholic and non- Catholics alike, when there were specific needs that they had. He is such a respected individual in the district I represent, and we were so proud of his elevation to cardinal in New York and believe that he is doing a tremendous job.

I will conclude by saying I was in his office after his appointment but he had not yet become a cardinal. He just kind of shook his head and said, I wish I was 10 years younger.

So many demands are made on a leader like Bishop Egan, and he gives every day of his life to this service. So when I vote for this resolution I'm going to be voting for the 200-year anniversary of the diocese and for a really remarkable leader that they have in Bishop Egan.

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

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

Offered By: Mr. Shays

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pence amendment as strongly as I can advocate. The Title X program provides comprehensive family planning services, as well as a wide range of other preventative health care services, including breast exams and instruction on breast self-examination, pap tests for early detection of cervical cancer or pre-cancerous conditions, testing for high blood pressure, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV screening, counseling or adoption, foster care and pregnancy termination referrals to specialized health care.

Pursuant to Federal statute, no Title X funds may be spent on abortions.

The question was raised, is it reasonable to ask us, members of Congress, to fund abortions when we find abortions so abhorrent? But that's not the question before us.

The question before us is, is it reasonable to deprive women of reproductive information and services to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, even avoid the question of whether or not to have an abortion? And the answer is no.

This is about family planning. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's leading reproductive health care provider. For over 9 years Planned Parenthood has provided low-income, uninsured and underinsured women with vital reproductive health care services they need.

I'll conclude by pointing out Planned Parenthood operates health care centers in every State in the Nation, serving over 5 million, men, women and teens and their communities each year. The services Planned Parenthood provides are needed, and to deprive them of this funding, I think, would be a colossal mistake.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I'd like to speak on this amendment. I couldn't get to the floor fast enough. I have immense respect for my colleague from Arizona, but I think that he has confused the issues in a way that's very powerful until you look at it.

This is a service program, and we're asking young people to serve their country. They're given a minimum wage. The last I knew people need food and money in order to stay somewhere. To ask an 18- or 19- year-old young person to serve without having the ability to buy food and to live somewhere strikes me as pretty remarkable. I view this as service just as I view serving in the military as service.

This is something they do because they want to be part of a higher cause and we designed this program so it wasn't a one-size-fits-all. It's not this big government program.

What we designed this program to do is to allow each of the States to create programs through nonprofit organizations and others, and we allow the

States to choose which programs they want to fund. And that means you're going to have a lot of good programs and you are going to have some bad programs. You're going to have programs that really do a terrific job and some programs that don't do a good job.

I congratulate the former administration for its willingness to design a Republican kind of program, a program that has a competitive model. You compete for these dollars on the State level, a program that allows you to have excellence at the risk of having something that may not work well.

And what my colleague described about the failures of this institution doesn't mean we get rid of Congress because of some of the jerks that have served here and some of the outrageous things they have done. You find out where there are mistakes and you change them. So when there is a program that isn't auditable, we made sure that we audit these programs.

I am a Peace Corps volunteer, but I confess that when I served overseas, they provided me housing and I confess that when I served overseas they provided me money to buy food.

I was called a Peace Corps volunteer, and the reason why I felt that I was a volunteer was I was giving 2 years of my life in service to others. I deferred my career to some extent while my wife and I served in the Peace Corps and I think Mr. Walsh could say the same thing.

Americorps is a program that takes 18, 19, 20-year-old kids who may never have had work before, gives them an opportunity to have work under a mentored program by various nonprofit organizations. You should see these kids, the thrill and the excitement that they have in being part of this program.

I have an inquiry. Had his time expired before I was interrupted?

The bottom line to my point is, you take these young kids who in many cases have never had the opportunity to work, who work at a minimum wage, are providing a service in the community and are setting aside money for their college tuition. There is a stipend given to them for schooling. We have programs where we give a Pell Grant to a student who doesn't do a darn thing. These young kids have to earn it.

I would just like my colleague from Arizona to rethink what he has said and what he is asking for. I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I will include a longer statement for the Record, but I would like to say that I align myself with Mr. Barton and Mr. Castle. Mr. Barton described the $700 million that is basically siphoned off the NIH budget. But there is $300 million in addition that goes to the Global Fund. Last time it was $99 million. In this, we are taking another $201 million and siphoning it to the Global Fund. Why not just give it to the Global Fund directly instead of putting it into the NIH budget.

I urge support of Mr. Barton's amendment, which will prevent funding from being transferred out of the National Institutes of Health and will effectively increase the NIH research budget nearly $700 million.

Each year, 2.4 percent of NIH funding is reallocated for the Evaluation Tap, which provides nearly all the funding for the AHRQ (pronounced ARC), as well as some funding for CDC and SAMHSA.

This leads to nearly $700 million being removed from the NIH allocation each year. Coupled with the $300 million being transferred to the Global Fund, the NIH has already lost nearly $1 billion before it spends its first penny.

I do not oppose funding these other agencies, but it seems to me if Congress deems this to be a priority, we should fund these agencies with their own line items in the budget, not survive by siphoning off funding from other agencies.

I do not believe we should require the NIH to give up part of its budget.

While I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's work in this bill to increase funding for many of our critical health, education and labor programs, I was nonetheless disappointed by the NIH's relatively small increase of $750 million, or 2.5 percent. When the Global AIDS funding is transferred out, the increase is only $549 million, or 1.6 percent.

The Barton Amendment will increase the funding available for the NIH's core function--medical research that saves and improves lives. I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor and longtime supporter of H.R. 980, I am pleased this legislation is on the House floor today. This bill will take the important step of guaranteeing firefighters and police officers the right to discuss workplace issues with their employers.

It troubles me to know in many states, public safety employees lack basic collective bargaining rights.

Firefighters and police officers take seriously their oath to protect public safety and, as a result, they do not engage in work stoppages or slowdowns. The absence of collective bargaining denies these workers any opportunity to influence the decisions that affect their livelihoods.

H.R. 980 recognizes public safety officers' unique situation by creating a special collective bargaining right outside the scope of other federal labor law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.