Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is critical at this time. As many people in this body realize, the scandals surrounding the criminal activities of ACORN have called into question their role in all aspects of government, including aspects covered in this bill. The funding they've received under Health and Human Services, title IV, which is covered in this bill, and other areas make it extremely important that we consider it at this time.

ACORN, as our committee had previously reported, is an organization with a long history of criminal indictments and activities, so much so that in fact the Census Bureau has, on its own, removed its funding. The Senate has voted 83-7 to remove funding; we must do the same thing.

This motion to recommit deliberately is here because in fact this is a funding-related activity. This is one in which we understand that the very fundamental of taxpayer dollars being properly used and supported is at stake.

There is no question as to where ACORN stands, where the administration and multiple Governors, including my own Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, have called for this investigation; 130 Members of this body have called on the President in fact to defund.

So the motion to recommit, narrow in scope, simply makes the defunding of ACORN a portion of this bill, makes it clear that the Members of this House do not support ACORN's activities, including child trafficking, prostitution, and in fact a great many other criminal activities, including voter fraud. This is timely, it is targeted, and it is time that this House act.

I move the motion, and ask for it to be voted positively.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is simple. It's about protecting students and taxpayers.

Earlier this week, more than 130 House Republicans wrote to President Obama requesting that he take immediate action to cut off all federal funding of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

ACORN has been linked to multiple instances of voter registration fraud and other illicit activity. In recent days, media accounts have detailed ACORN employees' alleged complicity in illegal schemes too unseemly to discuss in this chamber. To continue funding this organization would not just be indefensible--it would be an outrage.

An analysis of federal data shows that ACORN has received more than $53 million in direct funding from the Federal Government since 1994, and has likely received substantially more indirectly through States and localities that receive Federal block grants.

The Census Bureau recently decided to sever all ties with ACORN to ensure the integrity of their operations. This was the right decision. Unfortunately, ACORN's links to the Federal Government do not stop with the Census Bureau. This organization has infiltrated a host of federal programs, consuming taxpayer dollars even as it has repeatedly been found to engage in criminal activity.

To fully protect taxpayers, we must enact a comprehensive ban on Federal funding for this

corrupt and criminal organization. This motion to recommit will do exactly that.

Republicans have introduced legislation--the Defund ACORN Act--to put an immediate stop to Federal funding for this crooked bunch.

U.S. International Agreements: The iron and steel section states: ``This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.'' This applies government-wide.

Any and all Federal agencies: Section 505(a) is open to other entities the Secretary deems appropriate--an open-ended inclusion that could apply to any Federal agency.

The tentacles of this legislation reach into the economy, our education system, our workforce system, and a host of other areas. It is truly a comprehensive bill--and a comprehensive ban on funding for ACORN, such as that included in this motion, is what is needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual who selflessly risked his life to save the life of a terribly injured Marine, former Staff Sergeant Irving Saunders. Our country has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated Marines who willingly and unselfishly risk their lives to keep our country safe.

We recognize Vernon R. Buss for his meritorious actions on the Guiana Airstrip, Samar Island, Republic of the Philippines on the 24 January 1945, while serving as a ground maintenance mechanic, aircraft wing. On this day while performing maintenance duties in connection with operation against Japanese forces in the Philippines, Corporal Vernon Robert Buss, United States Marine, put the life of another Marine over his own. While assisting in the rescue attempt of a crashed aircraft and its crew, Corporal Buss singlehandedly extracted the unconscious and burning body of Staff Sergeant Irving Saunders from the wreckage of a burning F4-U Corsair. With total disregard for his own safety, Corporal Buss rushed to the side of Staff Sergeant Irving Saunders and carried him away from the burning aircraft, the burning pools of gasoline, and the random detonation of .50 caliber ammunition as it ``cooked off'' from the Corsair's burning ammunition supply. Corporal Buss carried Staff Sergeant Saunders to safety, rendered first aid to him, and facilitated his evacuation to a hospital where he was treated for life threatening third degree burns over an estimated forty percent of his body. We recognize Corporal Vernon Robert Buss for his fearless personal initiative, professional dedication and sagacious bravery on 24 January 1945. His actions reflect the meritorious credit upon his person and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

On behalf of the people of the United States, Congressman Darrell E. Issa, Major General Michael R. Lehnert, Commanding General Marine Corps Installations West, and all veterans who have served with courage and honor, we commemorate your service.

Mr. Speaker, it is so good to be back on the House floor, doing the people's work. But once again, I hear the word ``crisis'' used constantly--energy is a crisis, the health care crisis. When will this body deal with the problems in many cases created by government in a way that the American people can have the confidence that, in fact, we view problems as something which gets solved, and it gets solved by having the private sector able to do what it does best and the public sector doing only the minimum necessary?

When I hear my colleagues talk about how we have to make insurance companies do this or that, I recognize that we still don't get it. The crises are created in Washington, and we must change to help solve problems with the American people and not make everything a crisis to justify our pet projects.

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

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill on January 6, the first legislative day, was appropriate. This is a problem for an organization, the United States Post Office, which is, in fact, 15 times larger than General Motors. The United States Post Office is not only a constitutional obligation but, in fact, an organization which has existed for the service of the United States of America since our founding.

But since the 1970s, the United States Post Office has had a problem. The problem is our own success. Alternate efficiencies have reduced the need for the United States Post Office to deliver mail. Invoices, payments, and certainly many other emails instead of paper mails are being delivered electronically today. The United States Post Office is also suffering from a recession that we all are suffering under.

Therefore, the committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to recognize that we must reform the post office again. Having just passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act in 2006, we are faced with another crisis; but rather than having that crisis lead to haphazard reductions, the chairman and I have worked together with Members on both sides of the aisle, as the chairman said, 339 cosponsors, to create a soft landing for the post office.

It will not be that soft, Mr. Speaker. It will, in fact, require that they accelerate the reduction in their force. It will require that they look at all costs and services. It will require without a doubt the closing of post offices around our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, these are difficult decisions. They are both financial and they're political. They impact the communities who have for so long allowed people to go to their corner post office to maintain a postal mailbox, to do other services. These services will be further away in the future.

So for that reason, although I would have preferred a major reform, I would have preferred that we were able to do some of these hard steps, I'm supporting an alternate course, one in which we use these last 2 weeks and only these last 2 weeks of the fiscal year to move this bill with a cost, as the chairman said, of zero because there is so little time left in the year. However, we are committed on this side of the aisle and I know the chairman shares this, to work with the postal service to find ways to reduce their costs, their overhead, and many of the legacy items that today make it difficult.

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something the chairman said because it's noteworthy for my conservative friends. The post office's money that we are talking about today is the money they have put aside. This is the only agency that works in this way. So

although this could have scored, it does not score, and although people will often say that we are being fiscal conservatives if we vote against this, the truth is the postal service operates within its own funds. The funds that will be used in H.R. 22 are their funds. Ultimately the American people will look to the post office to make the corrections. This committee on a bipartisan basis will oversee the post office to see that they come in line for the future so they continue to operate on their own revenue and not on any revenue provided by Congress.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope my friends are listening. I hope this will go far behind the 339 cosponsors, and I hope that everyone on both sides of the aisle will put down their mark today to make sure that we commit ourselves working with the post office to do the necessary reforms so we will not be back here again in the same way next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to comment on the Delegate's statement because it is quite true. Just in the last approximately 18 months, we have added almost 200,000 net Federal workers on the Federal side. The post office is continuing to reduce its workforce, anticipating reducing its workforce by about 30,000, or more than 5 percent per year. We have to do better.

I look forward to working with the majority on finding ways that we can integrate more postal workers into other Federal opportunities so we can retain these good Federal servants, but at the same time right- size the post office.

Having said that, it is very clear, as Ms. Norton said, that only the post office is really cutting itself in the Federal Government, and that is an unusual situation. They are right-sizing themselves, and I hope all of our Members will be sensitive that we have to right-size them at a rate that allows our high quality service to continue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the chairman how many more speakers he has.

I reserve the balance of my time to close before the chairman closes.

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

All that need be said has more or less been said. This is necessary. It scores no cost. It is a reality of our recession and the ongoing reduction in the number of pieces of mail being carried by the post office. I might note in closing, the United Parcel Service, FedEx, DHL and others have experienced even greater reductions in their package carrying. That is part of this recession. This recession will end. But when this recession ends, the use of email and advertising over the Internet rather than your mailbox will continue.

So I look forward to working with the chairman. He and I have forged a very good relationship on these bipartisan issues. We need to create the right size postal system. We need to convert and retain postal workers as Federal employees where there are opportunities. That is what we really need the time to do.

As the chairman and I close, I want to urge all of my colleagues to understand, I am putting down a marker here today that I will not be bringing back the exact same bill next year simply to forestall it. We will monitor the usage at the post office and work with them, work with the Postmaster, and we will work with each other to make sure that we begin in a very, very quick order the kinds of reforms that may cost money but ultimately will right-size the post office.

That is a commitment the American people expect us to make and one we will make. But at the same time, I recognize that the postal service is right-sized to perform an incredibly important constitutional duty, one that none of us would want to see go away. Certainly at a time when a number of States have gone to postal voting, they now represent a key element of democracy even beyond what they have historically done.

I thank the chairman for this bipartisan work, and I thank Mr. McHugh who could not be here today for his relentless support and work. I urge strong support that we vote this out of the House on a unanimous basis.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor today. The genesis of this bill was in fact a recognition that the Postal Service funds all of its operations out of its own revenue. In no other area would the Federal Government essentially mandate a burden on a government agency over which it provides no funding, and yet here we do.

More importantly, most post offices are either named after fallen heroes in our own district, former Members of the House or Senate, or, in some cases, other notable people, and even, once in a while, a postmaster.

The fact is we make those decisions. We name those post offices. Those plaques cost money to procure and to maintain, and a recognition that in fact communities' involvement should be there, there should be a real upswelling of support.

Myself, I named a post office after the first Indo American Member of Congress, Dalip Singh Saund. I was proud to do it. And on the day that we put the plaque up, I had Members from all over California, and actually a few outside of the Indo American community, proud that the first Indo American--and the only one, except for Bobby Jindal--was being honored at a post office.

The fact is, that community would have been more than happy to not only pay for the plaque, but to help design it and to be more involved in it. That kind of support is something that we're missing because we didn't take this opportunity.

The legislation is relatively small. It perhaps would only save a few hundred thousand dollars a year to the post office, but I think it makes the kind of statement that the post offices and the names on them are important community activities and that in the future the procurement and perhaps the ongoing support will come from the community, with the enabling language here.

It also is a small but meaningful step toward the kind of reform of the post office that they want to do and that we want to help them do, and, that is, if they're going to have to live on their own revenue, Congress should not be adding to their cost of doing business.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers at this time, I would urge all Members to vote for the bill, and yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly appropriate naming. Often we name post offices in honor of one individual whose service may have been in the Postal Service, here in Congress, or perhaps an individual who gave their last full measure to the country.

In this case, we're recognizing a conflict--a conflict that has been difficult and has cost the lives of a great many American men and women--and this broad recognition that we should pay honor to them is particularly noteworthy when you realize that more than 11,000 Iowa National Guard members have been called to Active Duty in the past 8 years and that in fact more than 70 have died in combat.

So I join with Mr. Boswell in support for this bill. It's well thought out. It's unusual for a Member to forgo perhaps the gratification of naming something after a former colleague or after somebody by name in their district and to look beyond that--to look to the brave men and women who have served nobly in this crisis and recognize them in a broader way and one that I think will be enduring in Iowa for generations to come.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield back the balance of my time and urge full support for this resolution.

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

I rise to urge passage of this resolution supporting the goals and ideals of American Legion Day.

``For God and country.'' These four words eulogize and introduce the preamble of the American Legion's constitution, which has been recited by its members at every meeting in its 90-year history.

The history of the American Legion began when it was established as a mutual aid veterans' organization in September 1919. The organization is a congressionally chartered organization and was established so that returning soldiers of World War I would not suffer the same hardships that those from other wars had endured.

Mr. Speaker, they have grown far beyond that original charter, and today they represent a consolidated organization that looks after veterans from all wars and issues that are so important. Through thick and thin, through popular and unpopular wars, they stay out of the politics of the day and focus on the veterans of yesterday.

So, Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise with the chairman to support this, because the American Legion, in its work in supporting not only veterans, but also youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Boys State, Boys Nation, and others, puts together the veterans of yesterday with the youth and future of tomorrow. That is an important issue and one that I think all of us can appreciate.

We have all seen it. Not one Member of Congress can say that they haven't been touched and they haven't seen the work done by the American Legion in their district.

I urge strong support for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the renaming of the Akron, Michigan post office. From its humble beginnings on July 23, 1857, this post office has been part of the community in small town Michigan. Rather noteworthy, Mr. Kildee has chosen a rather unusual naming for a post office, and one that I wholeheartedly support. This post office is not named after one brave American or one now-departed politician. Instead, it's named after the countless thousands of men and women of Michigan who have served in the Armed Forces or are serving today and deserve our respect as veterans.

I would urge support of this, and I would urge all of my colleagues to take note that this post office represents a symbol of service more than the symbol of any one person.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill authored by Eleanor Holmes Norton that is, in fact, timely or perhaps beyond its time. This was passed by our committee on a voice vote and is supported by all members of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, home rule by the District of Columbia will not be complete until we harmonize as many rights and responsibilities as we can to the District. Our committee is dedicated to do that harmonization, to look for inequities, either by too much or too little, much of it well-intended in the past, some of it even needed in the past. But as the District of Columbia takes on its immediate responsibilities, we must also treat it appropriately and not have it governed by special rules. This narrowly constructed change will, in fact, cause the Hatch Act to be identical in the way it is implemented throughout the country, being implemented toward the District of Columbia. I think every American appreciates that if you lived in a city in Maryland or in a city in Virginia, you would have the same expectation of the rules of national governance as you should have here in the Nation's capital if you're involved in similar activity.

For that reason, on a bipartisan basis, we support this simple but technically necessary fix.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I join with the gentlelady in supporting her legislation. Every member of the California delegation, in fact, has supported this. Because it's in Representative Watson's district, of course, it's her bill, but Johnny Grant was bigger than Hollywood, bigger than California.

During his decades of service outside of Hollywood, Johnny Grant represented the finest in American service. After his service in the Army Air Corps during World War II, he continued supporting in many ways our men and women in uniform for the rest of his life.

In 1952, when Mr. Grant, along with Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, and Frank Sinatra, hosted the first national telethon, a fundraiser to send American Olympic athletes to the Summer Olympics in Finland, he, in fact, set a path of service in all aspects of public life continuing with the Olympics, adding to that the Boy Scouts, the USO, fire and police services and, of course, his many trips overseas.

In addition to the 60 USO trips that Mr. Grant did, I want to note two of them, because during the very difficult times in 1982 and 1983, he distinguished himself by being willing to go to Beirut to support and entertain our marines there long after many people had considered that to be out of the way. He also made two trips to Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He continued to support the USO along with Bob Hope and his many other friends throughout his life.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we've given a lot of awards to a lot of people less deserving and who dedicated less their entire lives. Many celebrities are for causes when they're in their active career. Mr. Grant was for causes that were fully supported by the American people but fully funded by the generosity of people like him with his time and his energy for so many years.

So I join with the gentlelady in supporting H.R. 2760, urge its passage, remind all of us that, in fact, there are those who give far less that have had these honors bestowed on them, and I certainly thank the gentlelady for picking this Hollywood post office to be the ``Johnny Grant Hollywood Post Office Building''.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication and contributions to the United States Navy are exceptional.

Our country has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated leaders who willingly and unselfishly give their time and talent to keep this country free and safe. Rear Admiral Leendert ``Len'' Hering, Sr. is one such leader.

Radm. Hering was born in Portsmouth, Virginia and commissioned through the NROTC Scholarship Program from State University of New York Maritime College in 1977 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Meteorology and Oceanography. He has also earned a Master of Science degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College, and a Master of Science degree in Business Management from Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island.

Rear Admiral Hering's initial sea assignment was aboard USS SANTA BARBARA (AE 28), where he served as 1st and 2nd Division Officer and Assistant First Lieutenant. Upon completion of Department Head School in 1980 he was assigned to the commissioning crew of USS FAHRION (FFG 22) as Ship's Control Officer and later as Combat Systems Officer. He had command of USS ARIES (PHM 5) from January 1989 to January 1991 and USS DOYLE (FFG 39) from July 1995 to March 1997. DOYLE was a member of the Vinson Battle Group in Desert Strike; the ship earned the Battle ``E,'' all possible departmental awards, the 1996 Chief of Naval Operations LAMPS Safety Award, and two TYCOM Safety Awards.

His assignments ashore include duty as operations and plans officer to Commander, Destroyer Squadron TWELVE; aide and administrative assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare; Action Officer, Pacific Command Branch J-33, Joint Operations Directorate, Joint Staff; 1st Battalion Officer and Ethics Instructor, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; Commanding Officer of Naval Base San Diego; Commander, Naval Surface Group Pacific Northwest; Commander, Navy Region Northwest, and presently Commander, Navy Region Southwest.

Rear Admiral Hering's personal awards include (2) Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, (4) Meritorious Service Medals, and various other personal achievement, service awards and ribbons.

He and his wife Sharon have three boys. STS1 Lee Hering, USN, Tim, and Christopher.

On the occasion of his retirement and on behalf of the people of the United States whom he has served with courage and honor, we commemorate the service of Rear Admiral Leendert R. Hering.

Mr. Speaker, so many Members have come up to talk about this plan, the plan that, in fact, cannot get even all of the Democrats to vote for it, and it doesn't have so much as one Republican voting for it. Hopefully, the American people understand Republicans believe there is a problem. We know, in fact, there are uninsured and underinsured. There are Americans who are concerned about losing their insurance, and of course, we all know that the Federal program, such as Medicare, is fraught with waste, fraud and abuse.

What we don't hear is that we can attack the problems on a bipartisan basis. Lower the cost of health care by eliminating defensive medicine, by lowering the threat against every doctor, if he or she doesn't simply do every possible test, even if it's simply running up the tab.

We can, in fact, work on a bipartisan basis on health care. The first thing we have to do is agree to do it piece by piece and to attack those things which either cause people to be uninsured or, in fact, cause people not to be able to afford their insurance.

I urge you to think about that, Mr. Speaker.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment does not reduce by one penny NIH funding at all. My amendment simply prohibits what is clearly becoming an endless stream of repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating studies of HIV at ever-greater cost. It deals with the $325,000 to research Thai sex workers who also use drugs. What a surprise. We've already gone into extensive legislation to deal with that criminal activity on a worldwide basis. It also deals with prostitutes in China and alcohol and drug users in Russia. We're simply looking at just $5 million over three grants.

Mr. Chairman, I think when we look at this $5 million, we have to consider this: A flight to Bangkok is $9,000. A ride on BART across town is $3.10. On the government rate for less than $200, people who want to study the growth of HIV can come here to Washington, D.C., where we have a 25 percent rate. Mr. Chairman, we have studied this. As a matter of fact, we have studied HIV contraction from dangerous behavior, particularly drug and alcohol, over 200 times. We've studied HIV at the National Institutes of Health over 1,400 times. We've studied just about everything one could imagine. But just so that we not miss one, how about HIV Prevention with Young Men Who Have Sex with Men: What Young Men Themselves Say is Needed? This was the Medical College of Wisconsin. We have studied it all. We have studied it for decades. This money needs to be spent on more than just study. It has to be spent on prevention and cure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have just one speaker, and then I am prepared to close-- quickly.

Thank you.

I will yield 45 seconds to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, never let it be said that Republicans can't take ``yes'' for an answer. I only wish that we had more amendments, allowing us to further refine the bill. With that, I thank the gentleman for agreeing to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Objection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say three things: Where are the jobs? Where is the transparency that was promised? And where will the savings come from in a health care proposal that, in fact, starts off by talking about savings while, in fact, increasing spending?

You don't need a new tax if everything is already taxed and you are going to save. You only need a new tax if, in fact, you are going to spend more money, create more waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, the President said we would not go above 8 percent, that the stimulus would in fact drive down the tendency towards unemployment and, in fact, create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? They were not created.

Mr. Speaker, the President said that this administration would have unparalleled access and transparency, and yet the special IG for the Troubled Asset Relief Program has said just the opposite, that he's being blocked at every step, that, in fact, he's not getting the transparency that he was promised.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Where is the transparency?