Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a former staffer who has touched my life and the lives of many others.

Jenny Chang was in the first class of Park Scholars at North Carolina State University, a Caldwell Fellow, student body president, senior class president, and dean's list student. She graduated in 2000 with a degree in biochemistry and minor in economics. She was also awarded a Truman Scholarship for graduate study. Jenny worked in my 2000 re- election campaign and then brought her talent, dedication, and cooperative spirit to my Washington office. Later, she moved to the office of the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney.

On April 29, Jenny Chang died after a 4-year battle with breast cancer. She was 28 years old.

One of the things that made Jenny such a remarkable young woman was her grace. She confronted death in the same way she lived life: with candor, with faith, and without mincing words. Knowing that her time with us was probably short, she wasted not a single opportunity whether traveling to the places she longed to see, savoring a good meal, or sharing her love with the people she cherished.

Along the way, Jenny befriended countless breast cancer survivors who were as exhausted by battling bureaucracy as they were from fighting cancer. She was a compassionate warrior. She would visit sister patients in the hospital, even when her energy was diminished by that day's rigorous chemotherapy treatment. She would take a book or just sit quietly nearby, offering support and complete understanding.

Jenny was outraged that we live in a nation where almost 213,000 women this year will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 41,000 will die from the disease. Still, she believed in the power of public policy to create change. She requested that memorial contributions in her honor be made to a scholarship fund to provide a stipend to students in public policy internships.

We honor Jenny by remembering that when we consider funding and policy questions regarding research on breast cancer and other dread diseases, we must get beyond the abstractions of budgets and ideologies. We're talking about the lives of loved ones, friends and co-workers. Despite extraordinary advances in medicine and technology, there is still much we do not know. Jenny tried every therapy available to her, but there was no cure.

Jenny was a leader and expected leaders to be good stewards of their power. It stuns us that she is gone, but her legacy of courage, honesty, kindness, and purpose rekindle our efforts and inspire our leadership. We will do better in her name.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lesley C. Dinwiddie, past-president of the American Nephrology Nurses' Association (ANNA), for her compassion, dedication, and pioneering contributions to nephrology nursing and kidney patients across the country.

As ANNA's 2004-05 president and a member of the organization for 24 years, Ms. Dinwiddie has inspired nephrology nurses to reach the highest levels of practice and patient care. A visionary leader, she has implemented a broad range of initiatives that will continue to improve care for patients whose lives depend on dialysis and other kidney replacement treatments.

The rising rates of kidney disease underscore the urgency of Ms. Dinwiddie's work: about 20 million Americans suffer from the disease today. The number of people diagnosed has doubled each decade for the last two decades and will likely continue to do so as Baby Boomers age.

For those who have lost over 85 percent of their kidney function, a condition known as end stage renal disease (ESRD), the only way to stay alive is to receive dialysis or a kidney transplant. There are now over 400,000 people in this country who are being treated for ESRD. Caring for these patients calls for highly-trained experts with sophisticated knowledge, making nephrology nursing one of the most challenging and rewarding nursing specialties practiced today. It is also one of the largest; ANNA's membership--now over 12,000--continues to grow each year.

As an ANNA president, Ms. Dinwiddie has led the association to many accomplishments. She spearheaded ANNA's advocacy efforts as the organizition worked with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on such crucial issues as the nursing shortage, the role of the advanced practice nurse, and reimbursement for kidney care. She helped fuel grassroots advocacy efforts for the Kidney Care Quality and Improvement Act, H.R. 1298, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This bill would modernize Medicare, advance quality care, and increase awareness of kidney disease in local communities.

Ms. Dinwiddie has also recognized the importance of recruiting and retaining nephrology nurses to help ensure the future of the specialty. She currently leads ANNA's annual ``Nephrology Nurses Week,'' a national campaign that recognizes and celebrates the critical role of nephrology nurses in patient care. During another annual event, ``ESRD Education Week,'' Ms. Dinwiddie and other nephrology nurses across the country invite state and federal legislators to visit dialysis units in their districts to learn more about kidney disease and treatments. I was pleased to visit the Cary Kidney Center in the congressional district I represent in August 2004. Ms. Dinwiddie has also expanded ANNA's collaborations with other nursing and kidney-related organizations, helping to ensure that the voices of nephrology nurses continue to be heard.

Professionally, Ms. Dinwiddie runs an independent nephrology nursing consulting practice in Cary, NC, specializing in vascular access for hemodialysis, education, and research. She is a member of the National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative's (K/ DOQI) Vascular Access Subcommittee and CMS's Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative. Ms. Dinwiddie is also a reviewer for ANNA's official journal, Nephrology Nursing, as well the Dialysis & Transplantation journal, and has numerous publications and presentations to her credit. She received a Diploma in General Nursing in Australia, a B.A. in psychology at the University of Arkansas, and her Masters in Nursing Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Lesley Dinwiddie for her years of vision, leadership, and commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join my colleagues in making a point that seems to be lost on the leadership of this House: this is not simply a ``lobbyist problem'' we are facing. Ensuring that lawmakers comply with existing ethics rules and enhancing lobbyist disclosure requirements are important goals . . . and even on this measure, . . . the so-called ``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act'' falls embarrassingly short.

What started as a limited but seemingly earnest attempt at reform has been progressively hollowed out over the past several weeks in--you guessed it--closed-door meetings with lobbyists. The result is not surprising. Reporting requirements for lobbyist-hosted fundraisers? Gone. No more bargain rates on corporate jets? Gone. A study to examine lobbyist employment contracts? Gone.

But again, this is not simply a lobbyist problem. House Democrats have tried in earnest to offer a plan for reform that takes a hard look in the mirror and examines what Congress must do to clean up its own house.

My colleagues Dave Obey, Barney Frank, Tom Allen and I have introduced a fourteen-point plan that would address not only individual abuses, but also the abuses of the legislative process. Our proposal would end the practice of keeping votes held open long enough to twist recalcitrant arms into compliance. It would prevent legislation from being slipped into conference reports without conference approval. It would require House-Senate conferences to actually meet and vote. And it would give Members of Congress at least a full day to examine the contents of any legislation we are voting on.

We have testified before the Rules Committee in favor of this comprehensive approach. During Rules Committee markup of this bill and again during the hearing on the rule last night, numerous amendments were offered and defeated--mostly on party-line votes--that would have implemented these reforms. The Democratic Substitute, which was also denied a fair hearing last night, recognized the need to take a comprehensive approach to lobbying and ethics reform. At each step in the process, our attempts at genuine, bipartisan reform were turned away.

So what did we get instead? It's no surprise: a bill that could serve as a case study in everything that is broken in our legislative process--of everything we should be ``reforming.'' We get a so-called ``Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act'' that offers neither accountability nor real transparency. We get a minority party--and many Members of the majority--completely shut out of the process once again, their amendments denied, their advice and concerns unheeded. We get a restrictive rule that makes in order just nine out of the 74 amendments offered--and only one sponsored by a Democrat without a Republican cosponsor--and allows for only one hour of debate on what should be one of the most significant bills we consider all year.

This leadership had a real chance to enact real reform, not for the sake of an aggrieved minority . . . not for the sake of election-year politics . . . but for the sake of our institution, for its integrity and its capacity to govern. Instead, they seem to think they can convince the American people that they're cleaning up our House, when all they're doing is sweeping our problems under the rug.

Well Mr. Speaker, the American people will not be so easily fooled. And I assure you that those of us in this body who want real, comprehensive reform will not rest until we have successfully enacted such a measure. But this is not such a measure. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, since the 9/11 attacks, the budgets of U.S. intelligence agencies and the scope of their operations have increased, and they have increasingly turned to private sector contractors to help do their work. Experts both within and outside the intelligence community have warned that the expanded use of private contractors is posing some major challenges. According to the Washington Post, the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Negroponte, has himself expressed concern about this issue.

It is an important matter. About half of the intelligence community's budget is reportedly now spent through contracts awarded to private sector firms. So we are talking about several billion dollars in contracts each year.

While the intelligence community has addressed some of the questions about how private contractors are being used and how they should be used, there needs to be a deeper examination and discussion of these issues both in the community and in Congress. My amendment would solicit information from the Director of National Intelligence and, I hope, would spur such dialogue.

It would also ask the director to provide suggestions on how to help him recruit and retain top-notch personnel, too many of whom we are now losing to private sector opportunities. Over and over again, we see the government invest thousands of dollars in training and obtaining top- level security clearances for intelligence personnel, only to lose them to lucrative jobs in the private sector. I know Representative

John Tierney and others have been interested in this issue, and I appreciate their support for my amendment.

I have worked with the Intelligence Committee majority and minority to draft this amendment in a way that will give Congress the information it needs to conduct proper oversight without posing an undue reporting burden on the intelligence community. I believe we have achieved a good balance with my amendment, and, as I have indicated to the chairman, I am happy to continue working with him and the ranking member to further improve the language as the legislation moves forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help us shed some light on an important and largely unnoticed shift in the way we gather intelligence.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question. My amendment, in fact, does not establish new regulations for the intelligence community nor does it prohibit contractors from carrying out any type of work. It simply requires contractors and the intelligence community to provide Congress with more information so we can do our job effectively. It is not about more regulations. It is about information, about what practices and policies are already in effect.

As for the reporting requirements, this amendment would require reports on private contracting. We have crafted the amendment to minimize the additional burden on the agency. The vast majority of what we are requesting is information that the agency either has or should have already, but it is a matter of assembling that information and making it available to the appropriate committees of the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and once again assure him that we indeed do stand ready to work on refining this language so we get the information we need in the Congress but that we do not impose undue reporting requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent, Dr. Caroline L. Lattimore of Durham, North Carolina, for her leadership in the community, in the state of North Carolina, and nationally. A well-respected Associate Academic Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences and the Terry Sanford Public Policy Institute at Duke University, Dr. Lattimore is also the 15th Mid-Atlantic Regional Director for Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. As many of my colleagues know, Alpha Kappa Alpha is the nation's oldest Greek-letter organization for African-American women, with more than 170,000 members worldwide.

For the last 4 years, Dr. Lattimore has led the Mid-Atlantic Region, which consists of chapters in my state of North Carolina and in the Commonwealth of Virginia. She will chair the 53rd Annual Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference in Crystal City, VA on April 13-16, 2006. The Regional Conference will be the culmination of her four year tenure as Regional Director.

Dr. Lattimore's tenure as Regional Director has been one of intense activity, as she has almost single-handedly raised the visibility of the Sorority throughout the region. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, she has been the driving force behind the Sorority's programs to promote educational excellence among K-12 and college students, particularly women and minorities; provide leadership development for the next generation of community leaders; support a myriad of community service programs; and encourage volunteerism. In addition, Dr. Lattimore is a founding member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Education Advancement Fund and an architect of the Sorority's registration of more than 200,000 new voters over the last few years. The basis for all of these endeavors has been Dr. Lattimore's commitment to education.

Mr. Speaker, her work with the Sorority, in educational circles, and in the community have earned Dr. Lattimore numerous awards and accolades. Among them are: Ford Foundation National Fellowship; National Council of Negro Women--Woman of the Year in Leadership Roles; YWCA Women of Achievement Outstanding Woman Award; NAACP Freedom Fund Outstanding Service Award; and the J.C. Penny Golden Rule Volunteer Service Award, to name a few. She was also the Alpha Kappa Alpha International Representative to the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing, China.

In every aspect of her service to the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Dr. Lattimore has been a dynamic and inspirational leader. She lives her motto for this Regional Conference: Alpha Kappa Alpha Spirit: Preserving Our Legacy.

As her representative in the United States Congress, I am proud to salute Dr. Caroline L. Lattimore for her accomplishments. I encourage my colleagues to join me in honoring her.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to Chairman Nussle's last offering, let me just repeat once again: the defense numbers in the two budget resolutions are equal.

In other respects, however, the Republican budget gives us the worst of two worlds. It takes us over the cliff fiscally, and yet it underfunds key domestic priorities.

You would like to think that if we are going into $400-plus billion worth of additional debt, at least we are getting adequate funding for our domestic needs. But we are getting neither fiscal responsibility nor an adequate addressing of our needs for investment.

The premise of the Republican budget as submitted by the President and as presented by our Republican friends seems to be that this country is going broke because we are doing too much cancer research. We are going broke because we have too many after school programs. We are going broke because we are opening up too much affordable housing. It simply is not true. To scapegoat these sorts of domestic expenditures is deceptive and reprehensible.

There are many reasons for the fiscal mess that we are in, starting with the President's tax cuts targeting the wealthiest Americans, defense and security spending above projected levels, a sluggish and sporadic economic recovery, and the expansion of health care entitlement costs. The one item not on the list is domestic discretionary spending, which is very close to projected levels. Yet that is the item that is being squeezed in this budget as though that were the culprit in our fiscal meltdown.

I am happy to say that our Democratic alternative balances the budget sooner and addresses these pressing domestic needs.

Mr. Chairman, our Federal budget, like our household budget, is a statement about our priorities, about what we most care about.

We ought to care about our obligation to future generations, to avoid placing a debt on them. We also have an obligation articulated in James' epistle in the scriptures. ``Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, `Go, I wish you well, keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?''

Mr. Chairman, we must take these dual obligations seriously: An obligation to be fiscally responsible, to avoid loading a burden on future generations, and at the same time to meet the needs of our communities, to open up opportunity, to be fair, to bring home the promise of American life.

Surely there is no better indication of what we really care about and what we aspire to for this country than the Federal budget that we enact each year. It is not just abstract numbers; it reveals what kinds of stewards we wish to be.

The Democratic alternative shows us the way past the President's ``worst-of-both-worlds'' budget, and I urge colleagues to give this alternative open-minded consideration and support.

Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, I want to highlight the teacher recruitment and retention provisions that have been included in this legislation.

In order to keep pace with anticipated teacher retirements and the growing student population, local school districts will need to hire an estimated 2.5 million teachers over the next 10 years. And not just any warm body will do. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, every teacher must be ``highly-qualified'' by the current 2005-2006 school year, a goal I suspect has not yet been achieved. In order to meet these challenges, we must embark on an unprecedented teacher recruitment and retention effort.

Fortunately, we already have evidence of what works. In 1986, the North Carolina General Assembly established the Teaching Fellows program, which currently produces 500 highly qualified and enthusiastic new teachers each year. I believe it offers a model for national emulation, and that is why I reintroduced the Teaching Fellows Act as H.R. 1801 early in the current Congress.

In the 108th Congress, I was pleased that the bipartisan committee leadership worked with me and former Congressman Cass Ballenger to enhance the teacher recruitment provisions of the Ready to Teach Act in accordance with the Teaching Fellows Act--H.R. 1805, 108th Congress. Much as we envisioned in the Teaching Fellows Act, the Ready to Teach Act would authorize State scholarship programs to attract the best students to the teaching profession, and provide support and mentoring programs that will help teachers make a long-term commitment to the field.

Those provisions have again been included in the comprehensive higher education legislation we are considering today. I want to commend Representatives McKeon and Kildee and other committee members for their willingness to work with me on this particularly important component of the bill.

With provisions added from the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 609 would establish scholarships for those coming out of high school or in their sophomore year of college, when students would perhaps be better prepared to make a mature choice about committing to a teaching career.

In addition, through partnerships with community colleges, H.R. 609 would offer fellowships to students, particularly those being trained as teaching assistants, to go on and obtain a bachelor's degree and full teaching certification. Students attending community colleges are often deeply rooted in their local communities, including rural and inner-city areas where the need for well qualified teachers is the greatest. So identifying and training a cadre of ``homegrown'' teachers is a promising strategy for meeting our most pressing teacher recruitment challenges.

These programs do not merely throw money at individual students but seek, through rich extracurricular programs, to promote esprit de corps and collaborative learning, to strengthen professional identity, and to provide a support system as students first enter the classroom as teachers. Students would participate in various community and school- based internships and experiences that go well beyond normal teacher preparation. These enrichment programs could feature a variety of components ranging from school system orientations and educational seminars to Outward Bound programs and international travel.

In exchange, scholarship recipients would be required to teach in a public school for a minimum of 1 year plus a period of time equivalent to the length of their scholarship. The idea of reciprocal obligation and community service are essential to the success of these programs.

Although I am pleased with these teacher recruitment and retention components of the bill, H.R. 609 is, in my view, lacking in serious ways. First, it seeks to make college affordable by squeezing colleges and universities. The bill's College Affordability Index would insert the Federal Government into the decision processes of institutions of higher education regarding tuition-setting, essentially establishing price controls. Secondly, it seeks to make college accessible by squeezing students and families. The bill would provide a very modest increase of $200 in the maximum Pell grant through 2013.

I am also concerned about the bill's provision to create a Title VI International Higher Education Advisory Board that would have an inappropriate and unnecessary role in curriculum decisions at colleges and universities.

We desperately need to enact a long-term reauthorization of higher education programs, and I hope we can make improvements to this bill in conference and achieve that goal prior to adjournment. I look forward to working with Members from both sides of the aisle to encourage our best and brightest students to enter and remain in the field of teaching.

Mr. Chairman, the Dubai Ports World debacle, like Hurricane Katrina, laid bare preexisting problems which some of us, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, have been struggling for years to bring to public notice.

The ports episode starkly reveals the pitfalls of the Bush administration's peremptory decision-making style, without serious deliberation or consultation. And it lays bare the dangers of 4 years of administration laxity on port security. The Sabo amendment offers us the chance to begin to remedy that neglect.

First, it would expand overseas container inspections to all overseas ports that ship to the U.S. The Container Security Initiative, responsible for reviewing manifests and opening and inspecting high- risk containers, is currently operating in only 43 of the 140 overseas ports that ship directly to this country. This amendment would expand the program to all overseas ports shipping to the U.S.

Secondly, the amendment would increase port security inspections and surveillance by the Coast Guard and would eliminate the Coast Guard's current $70 million energy shortfall.

Thirdly, the amendment would place radiation portal monitors at all ports of entry. Fewer than half of the ports of entry are equipped with those monitors now, and Homeland Security does not plan to have them all equipped until 2011. This amendment would allow each entry point to have a radiation portal monitor.

Fourth, it would increase our nationwide communications backup capability. The supplemental does contain backup capability for the gulf coast, but this capability should be provided in other critical locations; our amendment would add three such locations.

Finally, the amendment would strengthen our disaster preparedness mitigation response and recovery. It would increase the number of simulation exercises undertaken by vulnerable communities, and it would restore funding for FEMA's Project Impact.

This is a well-crafted, well-conceived amendment. I urge colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee amendment prohibiting the use of funds to establish permanent American bases on Iraqi soil. We must make clear to the Iraqi people and to the American people that our operations in Iraq are not open- ended and that we have no designs on Iraqi oil and territory.

Earlier this week, in a hearing of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, I asked General John Abizaid, the top American general in the Middle East, if he could make an unequivocal commitment that the U.S. does not intend to establish permanent bases in Iraq. His answer was that he could not.

Two days after our Ambassador to Iraq said that the U.S. has, ``no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq,'' General Abizaid said that the policy on long-term presence in Iraq had not been formulated. Three years into this war, if administration officials cannot make up their minds and articulate a coherent policy, it is time that Congress did it for them. Support the Lee amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it was one year ago today-- March 14, 2005--that the House gave final approval to the formation of the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Today I am pleased to report that the HDAC, which is chaired by Rep. David Dreier and on which I serve as ranking member, is off to an energetic and encouraging start.

My hope in first proposing creation of the Commission in the 108th Congress was to build upon and extend the pioneering work of the Frost- Solomon Task Force, which in the early 1990s extended support to the emerging democratic parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe. Those hopes began to be realized as Speaker Hastert got behind the idea, the authorizing resolution was refined and passed, and both Speaker Hastert and Leader Pelosi appointed serious, committed Members to carry out the work of the Commission.

During calendar year 2005, the Commission entered into agreements with five parliaments around the world to provide material, technical, and procedural assistance to members of Parliament as they learn how to govern their nations responsibly, effectively, and--in many cases for the first time ever--democratically. The Commission has now, begun its work with these nations: East Timor, Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, and Macedonia.

Our relationship with these countries will continue, hopefully over the course of several, years. At the same time, the Commission will be undertaking programs with a new round of emerging democratic parliaments in 2006. We hope to continue to support our country's ideals and interests in key nations around the world through our assistance.

While our program is still in its early stages, we have already seen clear evidence of the impact it can have. Last month, the Commission's first delegation of members of Congress traveled to Indonesia and East Timor and began to train members of those nations' parliaments. I want to especially thank the members of this delegation--Rep. Jim Kolbe, Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Allyson Schwartz--who I understand were greeted with warm welcomes and rapt attention in both countries. While in East Timor, this delegation announced that the House Democracy Assistance Commission would be helping East Timor build a parliamentary library from the ground up, no small accomplishment in a nation with extremely limited resources. Our Commission's work goes far beyond building physical structures, however; we are helping to build the foundations of effective and lasting democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the House Democracy Assistance Commission is an all-too- rare example of sincere bipartisan cooperation, Chairman Dreier, who chairs our commission, has helped us carry out our work with no considerations other than the best interests of the House, the United States, and our partner parliaments, Under his leadership, our Commission's 16 members have been able to demonstrate to our partners our deeply-felt, shared respect for and admiration of American democracy and the esteemed institution of the House of Representatives. We also owe a particular debt of gratitude to the Commission's Staff Director, John Lis, whose energy and vision have helped us launch the Commission in such a promising way.

Every day, members of Congress are called upon to assess and oversee our Nation's policies toward developing democracies around the world. The House Democracy Assistance Commission offers the House an opportunity to directly contribute to the sustainability and effectiveness of these democracies. We are working to establish democracy not just in name but also in practice, training our partners in the nuts and bolts of democratic government. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no more important work for ensuring our national security and maintaining our role as leader of the free world. I thank you and I thank my colleagues for your support, and I look forward to continuing our work.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, for introducing what he rightly says is a first step toward reining in the culture of abuse and corruption that has been laid bare by the various scandals currently surrounding this institution.

I know that broader lobbying reform is on the way, but I want to suggest that lobbying abuses are only part of a more comprehensive problem that is going to require a more comprehensive solution.

Congressional scholars Norman Ornstein and Tom Mann put it this way in a recent article: ``This is not simply a problem of a rogue lobbyist or a pack of them. Nor is it a matter of a handful of disconnected, corrupt lawmakers taking favors in return for official actions.

``The problem starts not with lobbyists but inside Congress. Over the past 5 years, the rules and norms that govern congressional deliberation, debate and voting have routinely been violated, especially in the House of Representatives, in ways that mark a dramatic break from custom.''

Lobbying reform alone is not going to right this ship. We need a comprehensive plan that gets to the root of the problem, the deterioration and mismanagement of our institutions of governance, particularly this institution.

Congressional Democrats have offered such a plan in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, introduced today. Yesterday I joined my colleagues Mr. Obey, Mr. Frank and Mr. Allen, along with 127 other original cosponsors, in introducing H. Res. 659, a 14-point plan that would address many of the abuses of power that we have witnessed in recent years. Among many other things, our plan would reform the earmarking process, end protracted rollcalls, require House-Senate conference committees to actually meet and vote, and ensure Members that they have time to read and understand what they are voting on.

I will gladly support the first step that we are taking today, but unless we enact meaningful and comprehensive reforms of the way this Chamber conducts its business, Jack Abramoff will be the least of our concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Molly Corbett Broad, President of the University of North Carolina, who will retire from the University at the end of this month following more than eight years of dedicated service to the students, faculty and staff of the University, and to the people of North Carolina.

During President Broad's tenure, the University of North Carolina has begun its journey as a model 21st-century institution. Under her guiding hand, North Carolina voters approved in 2000 the largest revenue bond issue for higher education in the history of this nation. Funds from the ``bond campaign'' are transforming the sixteen constituent campuses of the University through the construction of modern student housing, innovative classrooms, state-of-the-art laboratories and world-class facilities. Bond funds have also enabled UNC-TV to completely digitize its broadcasts and provided the North Carolina Arboretum a remarkable opportunity to make significant investments in its infrastructure and physical plant. During this same period, external grant support to the University has nearly doubled, surpassing $1 billion annually. All of these improvements will enable UNC to sustain its position as one of the premier university systems in the world.

In addition, President Broad has propelled North Carolina to the forefront of public higher education in the use of information technologies across all facets of University life. Her keen vision and recognition of the power of information technology to transform education and the economy of our nation and the world is widely acknowledged. Whether seeking her perspective on the academic usefulness of peer-to-peer technologies, the virtues of online and blended learning in support of access and teacher preparation, or the promise and potential of ``open source'' applications, CEOs of major U.S. corporations, international institutions of higher education, governments and not-for-profit organizations across the globe look to President Broad for sage advice and foresight.

During President Broad's tenure, UNC has also emerged as a national leader in ensuring access to quality higher education, especially among lower-income and first-to-college families. Over the past eight years, the number of North Carolina high school graduates going on to a two- year or four-year college has steadily increased. As a result, North Carolina now has one of the highest college-going rates in the country, and it is still climbing. One of the keys to this success has been the development--in partnership with the K-12 and community college systems--of CFNC.org, a one-stop web-based resource that enables students and their families to learn how to ``prepare, apply and pay for college.'' Developed during the Broad administration, CFNC.org has become a national model in enabling colleges and universities to provide readily available, quality information to students and families about how to pay for a college education--filling a need that the Congress and the public have indicated is so necessary.

Another major development that must be credited to President Broad is the development and growth of North Carolina's Need-Based Financial Aid Program. The North Carolina General Assembly has come to understand that as the college-going rate increases, more North Carolina students will come from circumstances that require financial assistance to make college possible. With legislative support, this need-based program has grown exponentially over the past several years and now provides nearly $60 million to needy North Carolina students.

President Broad has also positioned the University squarely in the middle of North Carolina's economic revitalization. As the North Carolina economy transitions from historical industries such as tobacco, textiles and furniture to 21st-century industries like biotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology, President Broad has stressed that the University must and will play a key role in that transition. From the development on several campuses of biotechnology workforce training and research facilities to the emerging ``biopolis'' in Kannapolis, President Broad has guided the University to the forefront of efforts to re-energize the state's economy and prepare a brighter future for North Carolinians across the state.

She has taken other steps to ensure that our children receive the education they will need in order to be prepared to enter the 21st- century job market. Under President Broad's guidance, the University is on track to increase its certification of K-12 teachers by more than 60 percent over five years. In addition, during the Broad years the University has surged forward in its collaborations with K-12 schools to produce the highest qualified teachers and administrators through such programs as NC TEACH, the North Carolina Mathematics and Science Education Network, and the North Carolina Principal Fellows Program.

President Broad also has been a leader at the national and international levels, chairing or serving on the boards of such diverse organizations as the University Coalition for Advanced Internet Development (Internet2), the International Council on Distance Education, the Council on Competitiveness, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. She co-chaired the study group that produced the Business-Higher Education Forum report, ``Building a Nation of Learners,'' which has contributed greatly to the important national discussion about the skills our college graduates need to be competitive workers and effective citizens in our 21st- century global society.

We are fortunate that President Broad's retirement from the University does not mean she is retiring from professional life. She will assume a position at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government, and we fully expect her to continue to contribute to the advancement of higher education in North Carolina and beyond for many years to come. We are very pleased, however, that she will have more time to spend with her devoted husband and partner, Bob Broad, and her wonderful children and two grandchildren.

In closing, I want to cite several observations made by others about President Broad's service to the state and University over the past 8\1/2\ years. Shortly after announcing her

retirement, the Raleigh News and Observer commended the President for her ``passionate commitment to excellence and for her effective shouldering of the system's noble mission of public service.'' The Durham Herald-Sun noted that President Broad will ``leave the state's public universities . . . ever stronger for her stewardship.'' And the University's Board of Governors recognized that ``as a result of her visionary leadership, this University and this state are better prepared to compete and prosper in a global economy.'' Of perhaps even more significance is the fact that President Broad was recently awarded the Order of the Long Leaf Pine, the highest tribute that can be paid to any son or daughter of North Carolina.

Molly Broad is one of the most personable, intelligent, conscientious, and committed leaders that I have ever had the pleasure to know. From the time of our first meeting, when I was delighted to learn of her intent to strengthen the university system's capacity to work with federal agencies and our congressional delegation, through our collaborative efforts to enhance research support, protect academic freedom, strengthen the university system's contribution to homeland security, and build the international component of higher education, I have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to work with her. The people of North Carolina have benefited and will benefit for many years to come from President Broad's service at the helm of their university system. Molly, congratulations on a job well done, and thank you for all that you have accomplished for North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join colleagues in recognizing and honoring John Dingell as he celebrates his fiftieth anniversary as a member of the House of Representatives.

As a young political scientist teaching about the Congress and doing research on the committee system, I knew a good deal about John Dingell before I joined him in the House in 1987. I studied his role, along with his friend and colleague John Moss, in shaking up the Commerce Committee in the 1970s, decentralizing the then-Chairman's authority and greatly stepping up oversight of the executive. I came to the House hoping that I could someday become a Commerce member myself. By then, John was chairman, and the Committee was the ``place to be'' for an activist member, known for its broad legislative reach and vigilant oversight.

As it happened, my region had its full quota of Commerce seats, and I successfully pursued Appropriations instead. But I have continued to admire John's work, now as ranking member. He is totally dedicated to this institution as the keystone of American democracy, and he fully understands the importance of active, assertive committees to the institution's capacity for deliberation and sound lawmaking.

John richly deserves the fulsome tributes we have heard from senior and junior colleagues, of every partisan and political stripe, upon this fiftieth anniversary of his winning the seat vacated by his father's death in 1955. Many have also mentioned Debbie Dingell, John's wife and partner in service. Debbie has been an invaluable resource to the House Democratic Caucus in planning issues conferences and other activities, and I recently was privileged to serve with her on our national party's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join in tribute to John and Debbie Dingell--to thank them for their dedication and perseverance, for their effectiveness as advocates and public servants, and for what they have meant to each of us and to our country as champions of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership's resolution turns the Iraqi elections, a historic moment for the Iraqi people by any account, from a point of pride to a point of partisanship.

As usual, the minority was prohibited from offering a constructive substitute. We could have offered a measure that congratulated the Iraqi people on this successful election. Or we might have put forward a substitute similar to the one that passed resoundingly in the Senate, that would have required the President at last to submit a detailed plan for phasing down the occupation. The leadership refused to let us do either, opting instead for a measure that divides and distracts.

As a statement of policy, this resolution is deeply flawed. It rejects a plan for bringing our troops home. It fails to empower the Iraqis to take charge of their own future. And it blindly adopts the vague formula the President has repeatedly put forth, ``as they stand up, we stand down.''

As we have come to know very well from this ``mission accomplished'' President, catchy slogans do not make effective foreign policy.

Standing up Iraqi troops is a critical step in empowering the Iraqi state, but American national security demands additional priorities: That we maximize Iraq's chance of a successful transition to self-rule while minimizing the possibility of civil war; that we stabilize the region, preventing the terrorists from taking hold; and that we protect America's men and women in uniform.

It is high time we took up a real measure to deal with the situation in Iraq such as H. Con. Res. 70, which I have introduced with Mr. Miller of North Carolina, now co-sponsored by 17 Members. That approach takes into account the Iraqis' recent steps toward sovereignty with two successful elections. It recognizes the valor of our troops. It requires a detailed exit strategy of the President. It calls for an immediate, initial draw down, and it sends a strong signal that we do not intend to occupy Iraq indefinitely.

Why will the House Republican leadership not let us vote on such a measure? Because they fear it would pass, and they fear embarrassing the President by calling him to account.

Mr. Speaker, let us start giving the American people what they are looking for: Honesty, accountability and a serious plan going forward; three things that have been sorely lacking since President Bush launched this war.

Madam speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for taking out this Special Order. We are having this discussion tonight as yet another potentially catastrophic hurricane turns toward the U.S. mainland, and once again we are not prepared. This time I am not talking about FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security; I am talking about being unprepared fiscally.

Our former National Economic Adviser, Gene Sperling, put it best when he said that when the congressional leadership all of a sudden starts asking how are we going to pay for Katrina, they are asking a very narrow question. The question should be, How did this country get into such a fiscal mess in the first place? I tell you, the answer was not Katrina, and the answer was not Rita, and the answer is not going to be Wilma.

These natural disasters do cost a great deal, and we are going to do what it takes to respond to the affected areas. But they are not the cause of our problems. What these hurricanes have done is lay bare this country's troubling racial and economic divides and the sorry state of our disaster preparedness. But they have also laid bare the dangerous deterioration of our fiscal health.

Now, in the wake of Katrina, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to have gotten religion on fiscal responsibility. Mind you, this is after they engineered an unprecedented fiscal reversal of some $9 trillion from budget surpluses and paying down debt in the Clinton administration to record deficits and deepening debt under George W. Bush. But our Republican friends are suddenly wringing their hands over the deficit. They are using Katrina as a pretext for doing what they wanted to do all along, and that is to cut the very safety net programs on which the victims of Katrina depend.

All you have to do is take one look at this proposed reconciliation package and you will see how much they care about the budget deficit. And I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina pointing this out earlier this evening. This reconciliation bill would not reduce the deficit; it would increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over 5 years.

This reconciliation process, we all know, was intended to facilitate the passage of deficit reduction measures. But the Republican leadership has now turned the process on its head and is using it to push through measures that will drive us further into debt. The spending cuts called for in this bill will do absolutely nothing to offset hurricane recovery. Let us be very clear about that.

From the beginning, the $35 billion in cuts contained in the reconciliation package were intended to partially offset not the hurricane but $107 billion in tax cuts included in this budget resolution. And now, if you add $15 billion, that is not going to make up the difference. What those cuts will do is threaten vital services that the victims of Katrina are counting on to help rebuild their lives: foods stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, student loans, and

low-income energy assistance. These could all be cut, just to name a few.

What about wealthy Americans? They are going to get off without sacrificing a dime of the Bush tax cuts. Quite the contrary. The reconciliation bill is going to be used to fast-track new and extended tax cuts for those who need them least. Maybe that is the Republican idea of shared sacrifice.

The very notion that we should offset the $200 billion it could cost to help millions of Americans and their families and communities get back on their feet after a tragic disaster and not offset the nearly $2 trillion cost for the Bush tax cuts, or the $250 billion we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, well, that reeks of hypocrisy. And it actually worsens the fiscal meltdown of the last 4 years.

Why should we offset the cost of rebuilding Biloxi, but not the cost of rebuilding Baghdad? And even worse, why should we make the very people we are claiming to help bear the lion's share of the cost? I am afraid you are not going to find very many honest answers from the leadership of this Chamber. You are going to find some deception and deficits as far as the eye can see. I think it is disgraceful.

Anybody who votes for that reconciliation should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing to the most vulnerable among us and what they are doing also to this entire country's future.

This is a powerful message, Madam Speaker; and I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina's leadership in blowing the whistle on these budget follies and also showing that the kinds of things we have been saying all along are laid bare by Hurricane Katrina. And the best response we can make is to not whack at the meager budgets that these victims already depend on, but to get serious about getting our fiscal house in order long term. So I thank the gentleman for his Special Order.

Madam Speaker, if my colleague will yield for just a moment.

You know, our friends over at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have asked the rather obvious question, where did that $9 trillion go? Remember that fiscal reversal? And the answer to that is that the biggest chunk of it did go to those Bush tax cuts. A good portion of it has gone to increased defense and security spending after 9/11. Some of it comes from the bad economy and the fact that we have had a very sluggish recovery.

But you know what is not on the list is the sort of cuts that are being proposed by our Republican friends in this reconciliation bill, and that is domestic discretionary spending or for that matter domestic nondiscretionary spending.

The country is not going broke because we are spending too much on food stamps, and the country is not going broke because we are doing too much cancer research or having too many after school programs, and yet that is where the Republicans choose to get religion on fiscal responsibility, in the very areas where the blame does not lie. So this Hurricane Katrina exercise is just more of the same. They are saying that the offsets for Hurricane Katrina are going to come from these areas that people desperately need, while leaving the main culprits in our budget meltdown untouched. That is simply unacceptable.