Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate one of the Nation's top public universities, the University of Florida, and their men's basketball team on their first- ever SEC title.

This was a Gators 40th try for the SEC title against a team that has defined success in this event, the Kentucky Wildcats.

The Gators beat the No. 4 Wildcats 70 to 53 on Sunday, March 13 in Atlanta, Georgia's Georgia Dome in front of 25,000 fans.

This win marked the second time in 8 days that Florida had beaten Kentucky, which increased their winning streak to seven in a row. This winning streak comes at a very hot time, as the Florida Gators are heading into this year's NCAA tournament. The Gators are playing their first tourney game this Friday in Nashville, Tennessee, against Ohio. I wish them the best of luck in the NCAA tournament and congratulate them for their first-ever SEC title. Go Gators.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the western part of Jacksonville and flew down for the funeral for Tillie Fowler and was quite moved. We lost a great leader. For Florida, she was a strong advocate, and we will miss Tillie quite a bit.

For 8 years, I had the privilege and honor of working with her in Congress on behalf of the people of Jacksonville. I feel a great deal of sympathy and extend prayers for her husband, Buck, and her two daughters, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth. Tillie and I worked on the Cecil Field Navy Master Jet Base when it showed up on the base closure. Many a night we were working together shoulder to shoulder trying to figure out how we could prevent the Navy from closing this important Navy jet base. Unfortunately, we did not succeed, but I learned a lot from her.

She combined humility with ambition. She had dedication, but she had grace. She was a woman of many talents. What the remarkable thing about Tillie was, you would talk to her and say, Tillie, I do not want to do that. She could get other people to do what they did not want to do, and in the end, they liked doing it somehow because of her leadership. It is a remarkable trait. She had a profound impact on all of the people she worked with, and she touched all of us.

Jacksonville used to be a small town. It is a much larger town, and that is largely attributable, I think, to Tillie Fowler's activities. It has 1 million people. The city is recognized as a growing urban center. It hosted the Super Bowl recently, a feat very few cities have had the opportunity to claim. Jacksonville maintains a strong commitment to armed services, and has two major Naval facilities there.

The successful transformation of Jacksonville over the past two decades owes much to Tillie Fowler. She worked on behalf of the area as a volunteer and as an elected official at the local and Federal level. This dedication to public service is really a family trait.

While making a run for Congress in 1992, she offered to limit herself to four terms. All of us went up to her after she was in the midst of trying to decide to tell her, I think your constituents would be very happy if you continue serving, but she was quite principled, and she said she was going to leave Congress and honor her four terms. In fact, I believe the leadership asked her to stay. She accomplished many of the goals she set out to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, we have lost more than an experienced lawmaker, public servant; we lost a good friend. She was a good friend to the people of Florida and to all of the men and women of our armed services. God bless Tillie Fowler.

Mr. Speaker, last week our nation lost a great leader and Florida lost a strong advocate with the death of Tillie Fowler. For eight years, I had the privilege and honor of working with her in Congress on behalf of the people of Jacksonville. I miss my former colleague and my friend, and my prayers are with her husband Buck and their two daughters, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth.

We worked together on the Brae commission when they had Cecil Field Navy master jet base on the closure list. We worked many nights together.

She combined humility with ambition, and dedication with grace. As a women of many talents, she could get other people to do what they didn't want to do and to like it. She had a profound impact on all of the lives she touched throughout her life.

Not so long ago, Jacksonville was looked upon as a small city supporting paper mills, a commercial port, and military bases. Today, the Jacksonville area numbers one million people and the city is recognized as a vibrant, growing urban center. Most recently it hosted the Super Bowl, a feat only a few cities can claim. Although it has shed some of its past, Jacksonville maintains its strong commitment to our armed services as the host to major military facilities.

The successful transformation of Jacksonville over the past two decades owes much to Tillie Fowler. She worked on behalf of the area as a volunteer, and as an elected official at the local and federal levels. This dedication to public service is a family trait.

Tillie's father, Culver Kidd, served for 42 years in the Georgia legislature, and her mother, Katherine Kidd, was a community leader. Tillie learned about civic and local involvement in Milledgeville, Georgia. I should point out that Milledgeville has contributed a great deal to this nation. It was also the home of the distinguished writer Flannery O'Connor and the long-time Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Carl Vinson.

From her small hometown, Tillie pursued her education at Emory University in Atlanta earning a B.A. in political science and later a J.D. Armed with her law degree, Tillie came here to Washington, D.C., and worked on the staff of Congressman Robert Stephens of Georgia. Her strong talents were soon recognized and she was brought to the White House as a counsel in the Nixon Administration.

During this period, Tillie not only expanded her professional horizons, she met and married a fellow attorney, L. Buck Fowler. In 1971, she moved with her husband to Jacksonville, Florida, where she set about the important job of raising a family. Although she put her career on hold, Tillie did not ease up on public service. She volunteered her efforts as the President of the Junior League of Jacksonville, with the American Red Cross, and other charitable groups.

In 1985, she returned to the political scene with her election to the City Council and served on the council from 1985 through 1992. In 1989, she became President of the Jacksonville City Council, the first Republican and the first woman to hold that position. Although she retired from the council in 1992, her political career was just changing direction; she then successfully ran for Congress.

Congresswoman Fowler returned to Washington with an ambitious agenda. She vowed to make Mayport Naval Station a top priority, and she succeeded. Through her position on the Armed Services Committee, she built a reputation as an advocate of a strong national defense. She improved the nation's commitment to military personnel and facilities in her district, throughout the nation, and around the world. Although a woman with a petite figure, she cast a giant shadow in support of our armed services: generals and admirals always knew her by her first name.

While making her first run for Congress in 1992, Mrs. Fowler offered to limit herself to four terms. Although she was asked by her leadership and her colleagues to reconsider, Tillie is stepping down after four terms. After all, she had accomplished the goals she set out to achieve.

We have lost more than an experienced lawmaker and public servant; we have lost a good friend. In fact, Mrs. Fowler was a good friend to the people of Florida, and perhaps more importantly, to the men and women of our armed services.

Mr. Speaker, last week a few of us had the opportunity to attend the opening arguments at the United States Supreme Court for two cases about the public display of the Ten Commandments.

These cases are very interesting because not only are they specifically about the Ten Commandments, but in a larger sense, they are about the long-running dispute over the so-called separation of church and state. I say so-called, because there is not one word in the Constitution that mentions this alleged separation of church and state.

And for over 150 years, the Supreme Court barely referenced this infamous phrase at all. The establishment clause of the first amendment provides that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' For over 150 years, this was commonly understood to mean that the Federal Government cannot establish a national religion as the English did with the Anglican Church.

But ever since cases like Everson in 1947; Engel, 1961; Lemon, 1971; and Wiseman in 1992, a handful of judges have interpreted the first amendment's establishment clause, misinterpreted, I might add in my view, to exclude more and more expressions of religion from the public square.

Now we are at the point where children are not allowed to pray in public schools. The mildest nonsectarian invocations are forbidden at public events, the Boy Scouts are ostracized for mentioning God in their oath, and even the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance are under fire.

Perhaps these Ten Commandments cases will be the turning point in the legal war against religion. We need to have a commonsense approach towards the relationship between religion and the State. That is why I was particularly interested to hear Justice Scalia's take on this case.

He was his usual straightforward and honest self in his questions. He asked the ACLU lawyer, ``If a legislature can open its session with the public present with a prayer, why can it not, in the same building, post the Ten Commandments?'' He also called the Ten Commandments ``a symbol of the fact that Government derives its authority from God, which seems to me an appropriate symbol to put on Government grounds.''

Justice Scalia also logically noted that those who oppose the Ten Commandments on public grounds would ``also think that Thanksgiving proclamations are also unconstitutional, which were recommended by the very first Congress, the same Congress that proposed the first amendments.''

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that the American people care about deeply. In fact, according to a recent AP poll, 76 percent of Americans support these religious displays, which Justice Scalia alluded to when he said the Ten Commandments send ``a profoundly religious message, but it is a profoundly religious message believed in by a vast majority of the American people.''

The irony of the Supreme Court hearing on these cases last week and of the outright hostility that the Court has displayed against religion in recent years is that above the head of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a concrete display of the Ten Commandments.

And close to these commandments is a marble sculptured relief of Moses himself, the great lawgiver. And let us not forget that at the beginning of each session at the Court, the crier opens with the proclamation: ``God save the United States and this Honorable Court.''

I agree with Justice Scalia and with the vast majority of the American people. In fact, to quote former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas: ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.'' That is why I have introduced legislation to display the Ten Commandments in the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Ten Commandments are a historical document that contains moral, ethical, and legal truisms that any person of any religion or even an atheist can recognize and appreciate. They present a concise set of values that represent the moral background of this Nation and our common view on right and wrong.

I believe that they promote a commitment to decency, which is why I have them hanging in my office. We start off every day with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Over the Speaker's rostrum it is posted, ``In God we Trust.''

There are statues and representations of religious figures scattered throughout the Capitol and House buildings. Posting the Ten Commandments would fit right in and would merely serve to remind Members that

we have the responsibility as lawmakers to be as fair and just as possible. Certainly a reminder of God's law would be appropriate as we consider the Nation's laws.

Mr. Speaker, the economy continues to grow as a direct result of the President's economic policies and those of the Republican Congress. Here are a few facts to illustrate this.

In January, we saw 146,000 new jobs and witnessed the twentieth consecutive month of job gains in the United States.

The national unemployment rate is down to 5.2 percent, the lowest since September 2001.

Job creation was up in 48 of the 50 States last year, and unemployment was down in all regions of the country.

Mr. Speaker, opposing tax increases and endorsing pro-growth policies has led to job creation. We are increasing consumer confidence and ensuring that the American working families no longer bear the burdens that impede economic growth.

We will continue here in Congress the hard work so that this progress continues.

Mr. Speaker, as the United States fights the war against terrorism, some members af the Senate have put politics above the needs of our men and women in uniform by not acting on the nominations of a number of high level Air Force positions. The Air Force continues to play a central role in winning the war on terrorism. Yet, on December 8, 2004, the Senate returned four Presidential nominations to the Air Force without action.

The nominations included two nominations for promotion to the rank of lieutenant general as commanders of Numbered Air Forces, one lieutenant general nomination to a key position in the USAF Headquarters Staff, and one nomination to the rank of general as Commander of the Air Combat Command, the largest Air Force combatant command. I call upon the Senate to immediately act on these nominees.

I also ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Air Force Association to President Bush urging leadership of the Executive and Legislative branches to resolve these issues at once. Our fighting men and women deserve no less.

Air Force Association,

Arlington, VA, January 25, 2005.

The President,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We are a nation at war . . . a war

against global terrorism. On December 8, 2004, the Senate

returned four Presidential nominations to the United States

Air Force without action. The nominations included two

nominations for promotion to the rank of lieutenant general

as commanders of Numbered Air Forces, one lieutenant general

nomination to a key position in the USAF Headquarters Staff,

and one nomination to the rank of general as Commander of the

Air Combat Command, the largest Air Force combatant command.

Today, the leadership of this four star command is

temporarily being provided by a lieutenant general at a time

when our Air Force is heavily engaged in the Global War on

Terrorism. The acting commander is scheduled to take command

of a key Numbered Air Force in the Pacific, but this move has

also been delayed pending Senate confirmation of the original

nominee.

It is reported that the Senate Allied Services Committee

has vowed to keep holding nominations of Air Force senior

officers until the Pentagon cooperates more fully in regard

to the recent issues surrounding the procurement of air

refueling aircraft, which now average 43 years of service.

These procurement activities resulted from the Air Force

implementation of the refueling replacement acquisition

strategy directed by the House Armed Services, House

Appropriations, and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Despite the fact that the Secretary of the Air Force and

the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition have

tendered their resignations in order to remove the

accountability argument, we still find no action on the

general officer nominations. In addition, the USAF is now

being led by an Acting Secretary--and on an equally serious

note, the Acting Secretary wears three other critically

important hats: that of the Under Secretary of the Air Force,

the OSD Space Acquisition Chief, and the Director of the

National Reconnaissance Office. He will soon add a fifth

critical hat as he takes on the responsibilities of the

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.

This vacuum in senior civilian and uniformed leadership has

a deleterious impact on our Air Force and the morale of those

who serve, and it is adversely impacting the many fine

leaders who are committed to serving their nation. Leaving

key positions unfilled for lengthy periods can have a

significant impact on the ability of the Air Force to execute

its mission. Lack of consistent senior leadership and

supervision, which led to criminal prosecution, was cited

recently in the case of an acquiition official who served

approximately 50% of her time without confirmed appointed

leaders above her.

Our Air Force faces not only the demands of today's Global

War on Terrorism, but is now entering a critical period where

the Military Services are engaged in the Quadrennial Defense

Review, planning for the future force, and supporting the

Base Realignment and Closure efforts in shaping our

infrastructure. These activities will result in key decisions

that will directly affect the efficiencies and effectiveness

of our U.S. Military. The Air Force and its sister services

must also address Presidential Budget Decision 753--a

critical decision document which will have significant impact

on our current and long term force structure and weapons

systems effectiveness. These activities require full-time,

focused leadership.,

It is imperative that we move forward on nominating and

confirming the required civilian and uniformed leadership of

our Air Force in this especially critical time. We

respectfully urge the leadership of the Executive and

Legislative Branches to come together to resolve these issues

without delay. The leadership requirements of our Air Force

must be addressed now so that it can meet its

responsibilities in addressing today's critical challenges.

Our nation and those who serve it deserve no less, and our

future security requires it.

Respectfully,

Stephen P. Condon,

Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Speaker, last month a U.N. committee approved a resolution calling on nations quickly to adopt and implement legislation ``to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.'' Further, the declaration, introduced by Honduras, also called on countries to ``prevent the exploitation of women.'' Cloning requires harvesting eggs from women.

This is significant. While not binding, I find this a hopeful statement about an emerging view towards respecting the sanctity of human life.

In early January I introduced my legislation, which, besides prohibiting Federal funding of human cloning, also expresses the sense of Congress that foreign nations should establish total prohibition on human cloning as well. The U.N. resolution will soon advance to the high court, and our Congress should lend our confidence to them. Please join with me in cosponsoring my bill H.R. 222.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time. I think it is appropriate that I speak after the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) spoke in opposing the bill, because I support the bill. There is going to be opposition from a few people. They are going to complain that this bill is arbitrary; that the fine on individuals, which is $500,000, is too much, too expensive.

But I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) have reached the right balance on this bill, so let us talk a little bit about it. It is not arbitrary. There is a lot of flexibility involved. It is not unfair or excessive.

We establish a separate standard for individuals above and beyond how we deal with licensees so that we can go that extra mile to protect their first amendment rights.

We should note that the penalty is up to $500,000. That means that the FCC has the discretion to fine much lower if it needs to. We all know that Janet Jackson is a person who can afford these fines, but if a local small-time entertainer violates our decency laws, the FCC can take into consideration that fact and that these individuals cannot afford $500,000. So maybe they will issue something like $5,000 or $10,000 or $25,000, still stiff enough to punish them for violating our laws and maybe enough to dissuade them from doing it again. In fact, the FCC has the discretion to fine them $1 if they see fit. So there is a lot of flexibility.

In order to be penalized under this legislation, the individual must have a willful and intentional profanity in order to be penalized. This means that individuals have to act deliberately and consciously knowing that their indecent comments will be broadcast. In other words, if an entertainer is unaware that they are on camera and that they are profane, they would not be held responsible for this.

The FCC can also check the list of aggravating factors that were established and then in turn determine the fine accordingly. The FCC will have to look at whether the comments were scripted or unscripted or live or recorded.

Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonably balanced bill that backs our decency standards, I think, with force. For too long, the penalties associated with our decency laws were considered just a cost of doing business. That is simply what they were. We will now have the potential to have individuals put their money where their mouth is. I urge my colleagues to support this language, support this bill and pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell my colleagues about a piece of legislation that I have put in; it is called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. My cosponsor is Congressman Rick Boucher.

Last year we introduced a very similar piece of legislation, and it passed, my colleagues, with overwhelming bipartisan support. Our bill has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Association of Wholesalers, among other prominent groups.

What this legislation does is stops baseless lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers, based upon the criminal or unlawful third- party misuse of firearms.

Now, some may ask the question, why do we need such legislation? The reason that we need it is because the firearms industry is under attack. Over the last few years, trial lawyers have filed suits against federally licensed firearm manufacturers across this country in the hopes of bankrupting this industry.

They have been filing frivolous lawsuits that are based on the dubious premise, Mr. Speaker, that gun manufacturers should be held liable for the actions of others who use their products in a criminal or unlawful manner.

In other words, if someone gets a gun and then commits a crime with it, these litigious gun-control advocates believe that gunmakers should be held liable for the damages or injuries that are caused.

Now, that is like holding a car company responsible if a driver gets drunk, gets reckless, and hits someone with a vehicle. A law abiding manufacturer has a constitutional right to engage in interstate commerce without the fear of these frivolous lawsuits. I do not care if it is a business that makes guns, cigarettes, cars, fast food or whatever it is, although firearms are the only product that I have listed here which specifically has constitutional protection under the second amendment.

Over 30 cities and counties, in addition to various individuals, have sued the gun industry since 1998. I am pleased to note that many of these cases have been completely, completely dismissed in various city, State, and Federal courts. In fact, just a few days ago San Francisco, based in California, the appellate court there unanimously upheld a superior court decision dismissing lawsuits filed by Los Angeles, San Francisco, and 12 other California municipalities against members of the firearms industry. I welcome this decision.

However, there are still several lawsuits pending which threaten to devastate the industry. In New York City, recently enacted legislation allows victims of crime to sue the dealers and gunmakers. We also must consider that just the mere threat of these suits, taking the first couple of legal steps to defend these suits can be enough on their own to force some of the smaller companies out of business.

As one prominent person said of this tactic, we are going to make the gun industry die a death by a thousand cuts. So our legislation will end these coercive and undemocratic lawsuits.

Now, I understand there are some of my colleagues that may be hesitant to support my bill since the media and gun control advocates have spent years and millions of dollars vilifying the firearms industry. No one wants to be seen granting the industry special treatment or helping them to get away with something, or so it is perceived.

I have two responses to this. First, the firearms industry has been around and has been respected for generations. They provide a valuable service and a highly desirable product to millions of sportsmen and supporters of those second amendment rights. They provide our law enforcement agencies and our officers with the tools necessary to fight crime in our neighborhoods, and they enable our Armed Forces to protect our freedoms around the world.

The industry employs thousands of hard-working Americans and these Americans support their families like everybody else. These employees and their businesses pay taxes. It is an indisputable fact that the firearms industry has contributed immensely to our society over the years in a very positive way. But this does not mean that if one of these manufacturers purposely or recklessly sold a bad product they should be given a free pass. No, we are not saying that.

Our legislation is very narrowly tailored to allow suits against any bad actor to proceed. It includes carefully crafted exceptions to allow legitimate victims their day in court for cases involving defective firearms, breaches of contract, criminal behavior by a gunmaker or seller, or the negligent entrustment of a firearm to an irresponsible person.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am honored once again to introduce this commonsense bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in co-sponsoring this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in support of the underlying bill, the REAL ID Act.

This is probably one of the most important bills that we will have to vote on in the 109th Congress. The bill obviously will strengthen our borders, improve the rule of law, and protect our national security. It builds upon the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. These are things they have talked about and had recommended, and it begins to respond to the pleas of the many families who lost loved ones on that terrible day.

It implements much needed driver's license reform. Now, driver's licenses have become the primary ID in the United States. It enables individuals to go get other identity documents, to transfer funds to U.S. bank accounts, obtain access to Federal buildings and other vulnerable facilities, purchase a firearm, rent a car, board a plane, et cetera. So lax standards and loopholes in the current issue process allow terrorists to obtain driver's licenses, often multiple licenses from different States, and abuse the license for identification purposes. The REAL ID Act corrects this.

Identification documents are the last opportunity to ensure that the people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.

The REAL ID Act would require applicants to provide proof that they are in this country legally. Currently, 11 States do not have such a requirement, meaning the majority of States have already recognized the need for tighter requirements and standards, but unnecessary and dangerous gaps still exist in this system. So that is why we need this. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the city of Jacksonville, Florida, which is the host for the 39th Super Bowl championship this Sunday. I think a lot of people were dismayed and a little bit surprised to read about a sportswriter, Tony Kornheiser, when he denigrated Jacksonville last week in a Washington Post article.

Let me give the Members some interesting history about Jacksonville. Because of its strategic Atlantic Ocean port location, Jacksonville has always been involved in conflicts, appropriate, Mr. Speaker, enough for a Super Bowl host. Wars with Spain, France, the Revolutionary War, the Seminole Indian Wars, and the Civil War all touched Jacksonville. Twenty-five World War I steamers were launched from Jacksonville ports. In 1942, German spies infiltrated but luckily were captured before blowing up Florida's essential railroad lines. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, what was the busiest military port in this country? You guessed it. Jacksonville moved more supplies and personnel than any other American port.

I am proud to represent part of this historical, important city and welcome Mr. Kornheiser and other guests to this Super Bowl weekend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and offer my best wishes to a person who truly exemplified a true civil servant. After 38 years in government service, Barry Adams, a good friend and constituent of mine, retired on December 16, 2004.

Straight out of high school, Barry began his career at the Naval Aviation depot in Jacksonville as an equipment cleaner helper. Barely a year later, he answered his Nation's call and served in the Army in both Korea and Panama. After his military service, Barry returned to the depot and over the years became a stalwart advocate for the depot's mission and its employees.

Very few people worked as hard or represented their fellow civil servants as well as Barry Adams. I have had the honor of working with Barry over the years on issues affecting the employees of NAVAIR Depot in Jacksonville, Florida, with many of them living in my Congressional district. As President of the Jacksonville Naval Air Station Association, Barry ably represented his fellow employees before Congress and the Executive Branch, consistently fighting for better pay, additional workload for the depot, and better personnel policies. He fought hard to ensure that the Depot did not fall prey to the BRAC process. He understood the value of what the Depot and its employees had to offer our forces.

No matter what subject matter was discussed, Barry made sure that the ultimate reason behind his advocacy was the Depot's mission to serve the warfighter. He made sure that Members of Congress understood that the employees at NAVAIR Depot were dedicated to serving the needs of the Fleet and other services and that each and every person was proud to be a part of that mission.

NAVAIR Depot is losing a dedicated advocate, however, Barry's efforts have paid dividends and the employees and the Navy should be thankful for his service. I wish Barry the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on this first day of the 109th Congress to introduce several pieces of legislation that I have been pursuing over the years, and for which I will continue to advocate these next two years.

First, I am excited to again introduce legislation to help all American savers. My legislation, the Simple Savings Tax Relief Act of 2005, simply eliminates the taxation of interest earned in savings accounts, such as passbook savings accounts or bank certificates of deposit. I think at least some of this interest should be tax-free, as we have been working towards for other forms of non-earned income. This legislation would end a punitive tax, especially assist low and middle- income earners, and ultimately contribute toward the goal of encouraging individual responsibility and taking charge of one's own financial destiny.

Next, for years I have authored legislation to repeal the 2 percent excise tax on private foundations. The United States is blessed with a deep spirit of philanthropy, and charitable organizations serve the interest of both the individual and the community. Under current law, however, not-for-profit private foundations generally must pay to the IRS a 2 percent excise tax on their net investment income, which diverts from the purposes for which these foundations were founded. Optimistically, this body passed a reduction of this charitable impediment to 1 percent in the 108th (H.R. 7), but as it failed to become law, I am reintroducing this legislation and we shall try again.

Next, I am pleased to again sponsor the Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2005. This would allow deductions for amounts paid for health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drugs. This would provide much-needed relief to individuals struggling with the high cost of health insurance and prescription drugs through a tax deduction, and tax parity with those of us who have employer-provided tax-deductible health insurance. Expansively, this benefit extends to all IRS-defined health insurance premiums such as an HMO, PPO, a traditional indemnity plan, a new HSA, and also long-term care premiums. Right now, under the current tax code, in order to claim health care expenses individuals must file an itemized tax return. My bill would simplify and extend this tax preference for all filers.

I also am reintroducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act of 2005, along with my friend Dr. Strickland from Ohio. This important legislation offers incentives via scholarships and loans to encourage students and faculty to enter the essential but undersupplied allied health professions, such as physical, occupational, and speech rehabilitation, and medical and radiological technologists to name a few.

Also, with an eye towards the value of human life, I reintroduce my Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act, which restricts federal funding and encourages other nations to do so as well.

Finally, I am pleased to reintroduce a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of establishing a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) awareness month. I do this again with my friend Mr. Lewis of Georgia. In past Congresses, this bill has had tremendous support from Members and from the U.S. COPD Coalition, which comprises the patient and provider community. The House passed this legislation in the summer of 2003, and we started a bicameral Caucus in the winter of 2004 to advance our efforts. COPD is an umbrella term used to describe the airflow obstruction associated mainly with emphysema and chronic bronchitis. This is a debilitating disease, that is currently the nation's fourth leading cause of death, and I am proud to bring awareness to COPD.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on all these important pieces of business for the nation.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we vote on the final version of the Intelligence Reform bill. It's appropriate that we do so today, December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day. We hope that this legislation will help prevent future attacks on our homeland. I will vote for final passage, because this bill contains much needed reform of our intelligence community. But more can be done to protect America.

This conference report is supposed to codify the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and insofar as intelligence is concerned, it does. But the 9/11 Commission's charter required it to create a full account of the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks and formulate recommendations for guarding against future terrorist threats. This includes immigration and asylum reform, border protection and identification security. The Commission's recommendations and staff report contained repeated and explicit references to immigration, border, asylum and identification problems of which the 9/11 hijackers took advantage and which need to be solved.

I thought that the House version of the Commission's recommendations, H.R. 10, properly attempted to meet these goals. Yet here we are today, debating a conference report that contains hardly any of the strong Title III measures that were passed by the People's House. This is incredibly disappointing. While the final version of this legislation adds to our border security personnel, tightens up our visa application process, and sets up some identification standards, the fact remains that we need to do much more.

We can have all the intelligence in the world, but if we can't protect our own borders or prevent terrorists from coming into our country, then we're just stupid. I support this bill because it reforms our intelligence, but also because the administration and leadership have promised to pursue additional reforms in immigration and border security.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I intend to make sure that these promises are kept. I also look forward to working as soon as possible in the 109th Congress on legislation dealing with serious immigration reform, improving our asylum laws, border control, and identification security. Now more than ever, our immigration policies have national security ramifications. I will not rest until we fix our laws to meet these challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was rejected.

So the motion to recommit was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Captain Ralph Gibson on his retirement. Captain Gibson concludes a distinguished career in the military with his final post as the Assistant Chief of Staff, Religious Ministries, Marine Corps Recruit Depot--Eastern Recruiting Region. This is a man that demonstrated the true meaning of service beyond one's self. Since his enlistment in the Army in 1967, Captain Gibson served not only his country, but God as well.

Captain Gibson served in the Army and the Oklahoma National Guard until 1979. That year, having previously completed his studies at the Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, Gibson was commissioned as a Navy Chaplain. He continued to serve both God and country through the First Gulf War, earning numerous medals and commendations along the way. Undoubtedly, his service to the men and women of our armed forces provided the spiritual direction and comfort so desperately needed when these brave people are away from their families and loved ones.

Captain Gibson will continue his service as pastor for a church in South Carolina. I am confident that the members of that church will greatly benefit just as our servicemen and

women did under his guidance and leadership. I congratulate Captain Gibson on his retirement, thank him for his service, and wish him the best for the future.