Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet the week of July 9 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 11 a.m. on Tuesday, July 3. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive due consideration.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee.

Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gohmert clearly doesn't realize that under Mr. Reagan we had a $1.41 trillion deficit. Under Mr. Bush 1, we had a $1.04 trillion deficit. Under Bush 2, we had a $1.69 trillion deficit, for a total of $4.14 trillion under Republican administrations. Under Mr. Clinton, we actually had a $62.9 billion surplus.

So I would like to ask the gentleman who is truly responsible for the national debt?

I yield to the gentleman.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 4: Page 65, line 17, insert after the first

dollar amount ``(reduced by $14,295,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 5: Page 65, line 17, insert after the first

dollar amount ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 65, line 25, insert after the first dollar amount

``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 502.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 502 provides for consideration of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2008, under a structured rule.

The rule provides H.R. 2771 with 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except for those arising under clause 9

or 10 of rule XXI. The rule also waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three amendments, two offered by Republican Members and one bipartisan amendment.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the legislation we will consider today, H.R. 2771, funds the legislative branch of our government. This includes funding for the House of Representatives so Members of Congress have the resources we need to serve our constituents.

It includes funding for the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Compliance and other government agencies.

The bill also takes a bold step forward and begins implementing the Speaker's Green the Capitol Initiative. For the first time ever, the House of Representatives will take steps to address the threats of global warming by ensuring the House operates in a carbon-neutral manner.

The bill provides initial funding to Green the Capitol by switching to 100 percent renewable wind energy for the House's electricity needs, increasing the use of cleaner-burning fuels, and making congressional offices more energy efficient.

This is necessary as Members of Congress must set an example for our constituents by being as environmentally friendly as possible, especially as we ask them to do the same in their own homes.

Most importantly, however, this bill shows the Democratic majority's commitment to change the way our government is run. This bill demonstrates a commitment to fiscal responsibility, increased oversight and increased accountability.

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attested to, this bill is fiscally responsible. It provides an increase of only $122 million, or 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level. This is significantly lower than the 13 percent increase requested by the President. And much of the increase is attributable to unavoidable expenses that come in a Presidential election year.

Reducing the President's budget request by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars shows that the Democrats are committed to holding the line on unnecessary spending, while ensuring that government is still able to deliver services to the American taxpayer.

While funding is increased by 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee chose to invest heavily in critical life and safety and security measures for the Capitol complex.

The world changed on September 11, and we now know that the United States Capitol will forever be a target of a terrorist attack.

We owe it to our staff members, our visitors, our constituents, our distinguished guests, and to ourselves to ensure that the Capitol complex is as safe and secure as possible.

In a post-9/11 world, we cannot be too lax when it comes to securing the Capitol complex. Security enhancements are no longer an option. They are a necessity.

The Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides almost $50 million for security and lifesaving projects, including $5 million for new, interoperable police radios, $275,000 for utility, tunnel, health and safety process, $1.2 million for visitors escape hoods, $16 million for building security enhancements, $1 million for emergency exit signs and lighting in the Capitol, and $4.4 million in emergency lighting upgrades for the Rayburn Building.

The bill also provides a 7.7 percent increase for the Capitol Police Department and a 23 percent increase for the Office of Compliance so they can ensure health and safety of the Capitol complex.

Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the defining traits of the Democratic Congress has been increased government oversight. As such, this bill provides the tools Congress needs to hold the government accountable to the American taxpayer.

The Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee is determined to crack down on unnecessary spending by government agencies. The subcommittee held 11 agency budget hearings and is requiring government agencies to reexamine their needs based on priority, cost effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility.

The bill provides for additional staff at the Government Accountability Office to enable the GAO to better support congressional oversight efforts and address important issues such as health care, changing security threats, education, and continued audit work on the war in Iraq.

The Congressional Budget Office receives an increase in funding to better advise Congress on controlling runaway health care spending.

Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz and I discussed CBO staffing in a colloquy during a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday. We both agree that the current funding staff levels are insufficient to meet our needs. We'll work together with CBO Director Orzag to address the staffing and enhance this important agency's efforts in the future.

The bill increases support for the Inspector General overseeing the Capitol Police Department. It also establishes a statutory Inspector General at the Architect of the Capitol. It is absolutely essential that there is stringent oversight of the Architect's office to improve its financial and management practices.

The subcommittee is 100 percent committed to improving the oversight and completion of the Capitol Visitors Center. I have personally toured the Visitors Center, and it is a beautiful addition that, when finished, we will all be proud of. However, no Member of Congress is proud of how this edifice has been produced. The project has spiraled out of control due to an inexplicable lack of oversight and accountability in prior Congresses, resulting in unnecessary delays and massive cost overruns. This bill assures that there will no longer be a blank check and no questions asked.

The subcommittee has held, and will continue to hold, monthly hearings, and the Architect will be required to submit a detailed plan to the House and Senate before one cent can be spent.

Madam Speaker, this bill delivers on the promises that Democrats made. It's fiscally responsible. It focuses on life, safety, and security measures, and provides much needed accountability to the process.

I would like to thank Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for all their hard work and thoughtful work that went into this legislation.

In particular, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz. She has been a true champion for the Democratic majority's efforts to bring efficiency, fiscal responsibility, accountability to the Federal Government, and to this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, this bill is well thought out, well crafted, and sets the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy the comments and the colloquy that my colleague from Texas and I and the rest of the committee engage in. We seem to have this conversation quite a bit these days.

I'd like to remind the gentleman that, while it's true that we have made three amendments in order this year, two Republican and one bipartisan, last year there were four Democratic amendments made in order on this particular appropriations bill. The prior year, however, there were 11 amendments offered in committee, and only one Democratic amendment was offered in this bill.

Why I raise this number, I want to point out that this is not unusual for this Legislative Branch appropriations bill to be a structured rule in prior years. And, in fact, there's good reason for that. My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in committee yesterday, in fact, that there is potential for demagoguery on both sides of the aisle on this Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and that he has agreed in the past, and this year, on a structured rule.

Now, honorable men and women can disagree on the merit and the substance of particular amendments, the number of which are not as important as the fact that we are arguing about substantive language, about health and safety, about meeting our constituents' needs. And I think it's important that we talk about that substance, rather than just the number on the bill.

And so, Madam Speaker, I think that we've done a good job producing a fiscally accountable bill for the Congress. In fact, the President asked for $275 million more than our subcommittee is providing under this legislation. The President asked for a 15 percent increase in this appropriation, and Congress saw fit to only offer 4.1 percent. I think the subcommittee has done a good job crafting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California and I agree on one thing absolutely, and that is that Mr. Cleaver is a great Member of Congress and offers thoughtful amendments.

The problem with his amendment was that it was simply unworkable. It required that vehicles be E85 ethanol-compliant. And, for example, in California, in Mr. Dreier's and my own State, there are only two gas stations that provide E85 fuel.

I drive a hybrid. I think it is an important thing for Members of Congress to lead on this issue, but the fact is that the amendment was unworkable. We discussed that in Rules Committee yesterday. I discussed that with Mr. Cleaver, and, in fact, the committee did see fit not to make that amendment in order.

The gentleman raises a number of other points, but I would like to talk about the $16 million and the FDA building that the gentleman raised and the fact that the appropriations subcommittee is, in fact, bringing fiscal accountability and better standards to the construction process of the Capitol, and that this proposal that the gentleman from California refers to was actually initially brought to the House by former Speaker Hastert. And, in fact, we are continuing the prior administration's priority in this area.

The subcommittee has changed the way this building will be managed and procured in that the GSA will manage the construction and retrofit of this new building that is being acquired in order to provide swing space and allow the operations of Congress to continue as we revamp other buildings here in the Capitol complex. The $16 million in security enhancements this bill provides for the FDA building are critical if we are to use the building for additional House office space. The project was originally approved, as I said, by former Speaker Hastert and is now being carried forward in this bill. It is critical so that we can get the swing space ready for the House to use when we begin the badly needed renovations to the Cannon Building, which is nearly 100 years old, and to the Longworth Building, which is nearly 75 years old. We need flex space to move offices while those buildings are being renovated. The FDA building fits the bill.

GSA is ready to invest $150 million in the renovations of this building. This additional funding is to bring security from the generic government building level up to meet the requirements of congressional office space. This is a long-term investment. If we don't put

this money into getting the FDA building ready now, we will have to delay much-needed renovations to our existing buildings.

I would also say that I believe it is important for our staff to get the same kind of security that we would get as Members. We know that in the post-9/11 world, as we have talked about many times on the floor before, Members of Congress and this Capitol complex are targets, and it is imperative that we provide our staff with the same security that we ourselves demand.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I was not.

Madam Speaker, I will say that it seems ironic to me that they blame the Democrats for everything, yet this proposal that is being put forward by the gentleman from Georgia was originated under the speakership of Mr. Hastert and was planned during that period of time. And, frankly, it was a good idea. It's something that needs to be done.

The other point I would just like to make at the outset of my discussion here.

No, I will not yield.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I also want to point out that Mr. Kingston is talking about immigration and the lack of accountability with regard to illegal workers on government projects. I would like to remind the gentleman that it is his President that is in charge of enforcement, it is the administrative branch of government that is in charge of adjudicating and prosecuting illegal aliens, and that it is their Department that is awarding the contracts. And so if the gentleman is concerned about this, he should talk to his President down the street. And with a single conversation, he should be able to get the administration to do what he wants, since he is of the same party.

With regard to this building that we're talking about, when we had the anthrax scare here in Congress, I am aware that they actually had to displace Federal workers to house congressional employees in that building. That was only for a couple of weeks. To do this for months on end while a building is being renovated is simply unacceptable.

Further, Mr. Kingston's amendment was argued in the subcommittee and it was put forward in the subcommittee and it was rejected by the subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. We need this swing space to be able to do the renovation. And I think this goes back to a very simple thing that Mr. Dreier said, that this can be demagogued.

Clearly, we can have disagreements, but we need to do the right thing by the American people to provide for the safety of Congress. This $16 million appropriation is for Capitol security. Either you support security for Members, for the staff and for the general public, or you don't. You either support security or you don't. And I say that the bipartisan workings of the committee were the correct action and that the amendment that the gentleman offered was previously rejected in committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Georgia by saying that, in fact, the Rules Committee did offer Mr. Jordan's amendment from Ohio that one-ups the gentleman from Georgia. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia said he wanted to cut overall the entire operations in Congress and legislative branch by 1 percent. Mr. Jordan offers a 4 percent cut. And so we made that in order so that the Congress can have the debate that Mr. Price from Georgia has indicated that he wants to have on the House floor.

It is a very open process. And, in fact, I will tell you that this is a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Wamp and Ms. Wasserman Schultz came to the Rules Committee and indicated absolutely that they had worked on a bipartisan basis on this bill and that they thought that they had done a good job working on a bipartisan basis.

We have, in fact, offered the debate. We will, in fact, have a debate on cutting overall administration. In fact, this is a responsible bill in that we have cut $275 million from the President's request, 11 percent less than the administration asked for the operations of the legislative branch. This is a fiscally responsible bill. The committee has worked together to craft it in a bipartisan way, and I think that we in fact have a very good piece of legislation before the Congress today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for his hard work on the bill. Clearly he and our chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, have done a good job working together on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that will work for Congress and work for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my friend, the gentleman from California, that I, in fact, did yield to him earlier in the debate for quite some period of time and let him speak on my time prior. So, with that, I think we have, in fact, worked on a bipartisan basis. I am also willing to work and discuss with my colleagues.

But, in fact, as the gentleman said, this legislative branch appropriations bill is one where you can, in fact, have shenanigans, or I think his word was ``demagoguery,'' and, in fact, we have a structured rule so that we limit that. We are, in fact, trying to have the most open process. I think we have succeeded in doing a better job than happened in the prior Congresses.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this point I would like just to yield briefly to our distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to respond.

The gentleman is correct. I will yield him additional time to respond.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Madam Speaker, there were several misstatements of fact in the last statements that were made here on the floor by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

This bill actually does not provide $4 billion for legislative branch appropriations, as the gentleman indicated, but $3.1 billion for the legislative branch. The actual spending for fiscal year 2007, including the supplemental but not rescissions, this bill is a $122 million increase, which is 4 percent of that amount. If the $50 million rescission in the fiscal year 2007 CR is included, the bill is only $73 million, or 2.4 percent, above the prior year.

We have provided in this measure fiscal responsibility, accountability, and security and life safety for the Members of Congress, for the general public and for our staff.

I would also like to make a point that this bill represents a $276 million reduction from the Republican administration's request on this matter.

Madam Speaker, three principles guided the development of the underlying legislation: fiscal responsibility, security and life safety, and accountability.

This bill makes smart decisions with taxpayer dollars. It provides the necessary resources for Congress to carry out its constitutional oversight responsibilities, something we saw sorely lacking in the last Congress. It ensures the Capitol complex is safe and secure. Most importantly, it allows Members of Congress to represent and serve our constituents in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for her work with me on this.

Mr. Chairman, by way of brief background, there is a strong and vibrant minority community of Christians in Iraq. Some the oldest Christians in the world are these various sects: The Assyrian Church of the East, the Assyrian Church of the East Ancient, the Assyrian Evangelical, the Syriac Orthodox, the Syriac Catholic, the Coptic Church, the Armenian Catholic, the Armenian Evangelical, the Armenian Orthodox, and the Chaldean have their origins in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, Turkey and Syria.

Like other ethnic minorities residing in the Middle East, throughout their history these various sects have been used as pawns by major powers in the region. Unfortunately, their Christian faith has made them targets and they frequently have been subjected to harassment and violence throughout the region.

In particular, the regime of Saddam Hussein was particularly brutal in their treatment of Christians. Because of their religion and because the majority of Christians opposed Saddam's regime, many of their leaders were assassinated and subjected to arbitrary detention.

The war in Iraq exacerbated this situation and further endangers the faith of this group. It is estimated that as many as 40,000 Iraqi Christians, 5 percent of the faithful, have left the country since the war has begun. While Iraqi Christians make up just 3 percent of the overall population, reports are that Christians make up more than 20 percent of the refugee exodus to Syria, and there are mounting fears that if Iraq becomes an Islamic theocracy, the exodus will accelerate.

My congressional district, the 18th District of California, happens to be home to a large Assyrian population. I have heard the horror stories from some in my district, and I am committed to ensuring that the interests of the Assyrians and the broader Christian community are well protected in the new Iraq.

I have taken numerous steps to protect the rights of the minority. In particular I have written a letter on the subject to Secretary Rice and have implored her to use all means available to ensure that the rights of this group are respected.

To further enhance our ability to protect these people, it is my understanding that there is report language in this bill which urges that $10 million in the recently enacted supplemental be targeted towards helping the Christian community in Iraq. I want to work with the chairwoman and the rest of the members of the committee to ensure that this money goes for its intended purpose of protecting this community and does not get diverted to other issues.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her help on this issue and for her agreement to work towards ensuring that the money goes to alleviate the suffering of the Christian community in Iraq. This community has lived in this part of the world for over 1,000 years, and we must do our part to ensure that they live there for 1,000 more.

If the gentleman would yield briefly, I would say I did look for the gentleman on the floor yesterday as well, but we must have missed each other in our search. I thank the gentleman for his comments in the Rules Committee where I raised this issue initially. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future. I will look for opportunities, together we will look for opportunities, to send a continuing message that this population is important, not just to the Middle East, but to this country as well, and it is important for us to assist and invest in this community.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor a shepherd of California's Central Valley, Carolyn Lott. I can think of no one person who has worked harder for their community and on a wider range of issues than Carolyn. As she prepares to retire from years of dedicated service, I'd like to share a little about my good friend.

Carolyn Lott has been a guiding light on the valley's path of social and economic growth. A champion of the Highway 99 Corridor, Carolyn has ensured much needed State capital be directed to this main transportation artery through the Central Valley. Her latest position as Senior Program Manager for the Great Valley Center in Modesto, California has allowed her to continue promoting this agenda, as well as incorporate it into a blueprint plan for the region. In addition to her responsibilities with this position, she also manages the project work within New Valley Connexions, a program that focuses on helping to strengthen and diversify the regional economy of the Central Valley by advancing the use of new technologies and positioning the region to be more competitive in the 21st century.

Prior to Carolyn's current position, she was affiliated with the Great Valley Center as a consultant coordinating a nine-county regional effort to organize sectors of the San Joaquin Valley around development of voluntary measures to help improve air quality. She successfully guided the development of 14 sectors, corresponding working groups, a draft air quality improvement plan, and an inaugural summit with more than 400 attendees. Additionally, through both local efforts and a trip to Washington, DC, congressional assistance for the effort was obtained both through endorsement of the project and actual funding commitments.

Through the Great Valley Center, Carolyn continued her affiliation with the Center for Collaborative Policy in Sacramento, California. CCP is a joint program of California State University, Sacramento and McGeorge School of Law and offers facilitation for public policy development. Carolyn has completed the sixth year of contract services providing facilitation to the Department of Water Resources for San Joaquin County. During her tenure, the county and a joint powers authority have moved from a stalemate position to recipients of State funding for water supply projects and are currently developing an integrated regional water management plan to assure water reliability and to help restore the significantly depleted underground aquifer. Also with CCP, Carolyn was both project manager and facilitator for the Smart Growth Local Elected Officials Roundtables, a joint project of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the California State Association of Counties, the Local Government Commission, and the League of California Cities.

Prior to her work as a facilitator and program manager, Carolyn (Ratto) Lott was a councilmember in Turlock, California. During this time she was actively involved in numerous policy development activities through both the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities. She played a leadership role as president of the LCC, board of directors member for both organizations, and chair of numerous committees and special projects, including chairing the National League of Cities Leadership Training Council. She has also chaired the California Cities, Counties, and Schools State Partnership and still serves on their board of directors, and served as a Governor's appointee on the Commission for Local Governance in the 21st Century. She has completed a decade of service on the Turlock Chamber of Commerce Leadership Steering Committee and has spent more than half a decade as an advisory board member for California State University, Stanislaus. She also completed three terms as a board member for Emanuel Medical Center in Turlock. Currently she serves as an advisory committee member of the Collaborative Governance Initiative, part of the League of California Cities' Institute for Local Government, as a board member for the California Budget Project, and on the Advisory Committee for the College of Business Administration, California State University, Stanislaus.

Carolyn's efforts on behalf of the Central Valley have left an indelible mark. There is no doubt that future generations will benefit greatly because of Carolyn's foresight and commonsense plans of action. As she prepares to make more time for herself and her husband, Lonald, I trust she will continue to be a great example to all aspiring stewards of our community.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Unfortunately, recent scandals have somewhat tarnished the reputation of Congress and stretched the bonds of trust between the public and their government. My amendment is quite simple and will help to restore that bond between public officials and the people that we represent.

My amendment gives Federal judges discretion to increase criminal sentences in cases where public confidence in government has been violated. If a public official has been convicted of bribery, fraud, extortion, or theft of public funds greater than $10,000, a sentencing judge has within his discretion to double the length of the sentence up to 2 years for those public officials convicted of ethics violations.

The 110th Congress has already taken steps to ensure that public officials adhere to the highest ethical standards and are more accountable for their actions. Banning meals, restricting congressional travel, and tightening the lobbying rules are all important first steps that we have already taken. However, more needs to be done.

With public faith in government officials weakened by scandals, we need to ensure that those who break these laws are punished appropriately. Beyond breaking the law, the perpetrators of these crimes violate the public trust by defying their fiduciary responsibility to our Constitution. For government to function effectively, the public must be able to trust the people making the decisions, and as public officials, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard.

This amendment signals that breaches of the public trust will not be condoned. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and join me in providing a deterrent to illegal behavior in the future and helping rebuild public trust in government officials.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Chair. I appreciate his comments. I think it's a worthy amendment, and I ask the House to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas, and I appreciate him yielding.

Today I rise because on Monday I reintroduced a bill the Blue Dogs had endorsed last year, H.R. 2402, the Public Official Accountability Act.

The Blue Dogs just aren't fiscally responsible, Mr. Speaker, but we're responsible in a number of other ways, and one is accountability of the Members of this institution to make sure that we uphold the public trust.

H.R. 2402 gives judges the discretion to increase the sentence for public officials convicted of certain enumerated crimes that violate the public trust. If a public official has been convicted of bribery, fraud, extortion or theft of public funds greater than $10,000, a sentencing judge should have the discretion to double the length of a sentence up to 2 years for those public officials convicted of such ethical violations.

Unfortunately, recent scandals have somewhat tarnished the reputation of this great institution and have stretched the bonds of trust between the public and their government. This bill signals that breaches of the public trust will not be condoned and, therefore, will help to restore the bonds of trust that have been frayed.

The 110th Congress has already taken steps to ensure that public officials adhere to the highest ethical standards and are more accountable for their actions. Banning meals, constricting congressional travel, and tightening the lobbying rules are all important first steps that have already been taken; however, much more needs to be done. It will take a concerted effort and some time to overcome the spate of negative examples of public officials abusing the trust conferred upon them.

For government to function effectively, the public must be able to trust the people making decisions in this institution. My bill will help restore that bond of trust between public officials and the people they represent. By holding ourselves to the highest ethical standards, we are making clear that we have heard the message of the people who are demanding honesty and accountability of their leaders.

I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort and to become cosponsors of my bill. A number of Members have already signed on, and I hope the rest of my colleagues will join them. Let's pass this bill and restore the faith that our constituents have in their public institutions.

As we're talking about accountability, you've raised the Blue Dog Coalition debt poster that we have in front of our offices. I'm disturbed, as we always are, that every single day that poster goes up. We've done a lot of work as Blue Dogs to restore accountability in the fiscal side. We have put into the House rules PAYGO rules that say you have to pay as you go. We need to work on statutory PAYGO yet some more. There's some more things that we need to do. We're not finished with this, but clearly we have been heard in this House, and we are changing the culture.

This bill that I've brought forward today during our Blue Dog hour will also change the culture. It will send an important message that don't commit the crime if you can't do the time. We say that to common burglars and drug offenders all throughout our society. We also should say it to those same common criminals that perpetrate their crimes in the halls of Congress.

So, today, I stand with my Blue Dog colleagues, as we always do during this Blue Dog hour, to ask for accountability in this Congress, accountability in our country, accountability with our finances. I'm just so proud to be a member of this organization.

Thank you for yielding to me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill inserted into the ethics bill that's going through the House this week or as a stand-alone measure later in the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to allow Mr. Weller to speak next.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 263, a resolution recognizing May, this month, as the National Foster Care Month.

I want to begin my statement today by thanking subcommittee chairman, Mr. McDermott from Washington, for his outstanding support and work with us to bring this resolution to the floor. Chairman McDermott has dedicated virtually his entire life to the work of helping children that have been disadvantaged, and he deserves great praise and thanks for the hard work he continues to do in this Congress.

I also want to recognize Mr. Weller for cooperating with us today in bringing this resolution to the floor, and also for his thoughtful comments that he just prepared.

However, this resolution has a long and tortuous path to reaching the floor today. My staff's been working tirelessly with both the majority and the minority staffs of the Ways and Means

and Judiciary Committees. Before this bill was able to reach the floor under suspension, I was forced to make substantive changes which severely, in my opinion, gut the force of this resolution.

Specifically, my original resolution, drawing upon the recommendations of the respected Pew Charitable Trust, made clear that we need more funds for the CASA Program, that we need more funds to better ensure that we have trained personnel working with foster children, and that we provide more resources to State agencies that deal with foster children.

In the interest of comity, I was forced to withdraw all these recommendations. Unfortunately, while of course I still support the thrust of the current resolution, without sufficient resources we will never fully tackle this problem.

I'd also like to just point out, and it's important history for us all to remember, that in the previous majority in the last Congress, we took, in my mind, unconscionable measures to reduce the funding to foster children.

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The CBO estimates that this measure cut funds of $1.3 billion over 10 years to foster care and $2.1 billion over 10 years to Medicaid that would affect these children.

I stood up on the House floor on that day in December when it was being debated in this institution and fought against those cuts. I, at that time, called it ``Scroogenomics,'' because we were cutting the money for foster kids right before the Christmas holiday. And those concerns went for nought. The bill was passed anyway and signed into law, and foster kids continue to suffer because of that act.

I won't belabor the point too much at this point because I really want to focus on the needs today. But, Madam Speaker, I speak passionately about foster children because I have a very personal interest in this issue. Seven years ago I adopted two foster children. In fact, Madam Speaker, as an aside, I'm doing this resolution because they asked me to do it today.

Since then, I have advocated on their behalf and on the behalf of the adoption of foster children in the California State Assembly and now here in Congress.

The need is tremendous and the statistics are sobering. It is estimated that there are 800,000 children in foster care at some point during any given year. Moreover, children of color are disproportionately represented in foster care. African American children make up about 16 percent of the Nation's children, but make up 35 percent of the children in foster care. These children enter foster care at higher rates and remain in care longer, for longer periods than white children.

Too many children in foster care sit waiting for permanent families. There are about 118,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted, and numerous barriers keep them in limbo. Children often bounce from one system to another, from child welfare to juvenile justice to mental health as their needs intensify.

Each year, about 20,000 children age out of the foster care system without ever being adopted, placed with grandparents or any other supportive adult. Oftentimes, these children have no connection whatsoever to any adult.

Several studies released in 2005 documented the special challenges facing these youths, especially in the area of mental health, education and employment. They are especially poorly prepared to be self- sufficient young adults.

These children are waiting. Speaking from personal experience, there is no greater joy in life than helping a child. My wife and I can attest to this every day.

Every child, no matter what their situation that they may be born to, deserves a chance to be raised in a stable and loving home. Innocent children should not be forced to bear the mistakes of their parents. We have a moral obligation to ensure that these children, no matter what background they come from, have a shot that is equal to the shot that every American has to the American dream.

This is a big problem that will require bold solutions. In order to save the next generation of children, we must rededicate ourselves to their welfare and to pledge to do whatever is necessary to nurture and protect them.

This resolution, by highlighting attention to their problems, is a necessary first step. But, Madam Speaker, other dramatic actions need to be taken. That is why I have introduced legislation to expand Medicaid coverage to children who age out of the foster care system, and I'm considering legislation to ensure that every foster child has a CASA representative, a court-appointed special advocate, the same type of court-appointed special advocate that saved my children.

These are urgent problems. They require bold solutions. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Weller. I know he cares passionately about these children, and while we sometimes disagree on the specifics, I know that all Members in this institution care passionately about foster children.

But the time to act is now. We need to do more to work on behalf of these children to eliminate the barriers that prohibit them from leading positive lives in society.

We must extend health care coverage to these young people until the age of 21. It's currently a voluntary program. Thirty-three States in this country do not offer health care all the way to the age of majority. We must, in fact, do more. And it is imperative. And frankly, if we can keep these young people out of a life of crime, out of falling into trouble, assisting them into becoming productive citizens, instead of the current situation where nearly 50 percent of children who age out of the foster care system end up homeless after 1 year, we can do better for our citizens and we can, frankly, probably save money to the taxpayers of the United States.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution. I urge my colleagues here today within earshot of my voice to redouble their efforts in helping this population of our citizenry that has become disadvantaged.

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

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 323, I inserted by vote card but was not recorded. My intention was to vote ``yes.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 383.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 383 provides for consideration of H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. The rule makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as original text for the purpose of amendment. The substitute shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order eight amendments that were submitted for consideration that are printed in the Rules Committee report on this accompanying resolution.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, H.R. 1873, amends key sections of the Small Business Act to assist small businesses in participation in Federal procurement.

The predecessors to the Small Business Administration can be traced back to World War II and efforts by President Roosevelt and President Truman. In fact, during World War II, it was found to be in our national interest to ensure a strong and diverse industrial base.

Through a series of laws and procurement requirements, Congress established a benchmark to give small business every opportunity to compete fairly for the awarding of Federal contracts. Despite this clear mandate in existence for more than 50 years, small businesses, however, have not received their fair share of Federal Government contracts.

For example, in 2006, the Federal Government spent over $417 billion on goods and services in 8.3 million separate contract actions. Small businesses won approximately $80 billion in contracts, approximately 21.5 percent of these contracts. This was the sixth straight year that the government has failed to meet its 23 percent small business contracting goal. This cost entrepreneurs an estimated $4.5 billion in lost contracting opportunities last year alone.

Small businesses suffered this massive loss, despite their importance to our national economy. Small businesses are the engine of our economy. In fact, they are responsible for creating three out of every four jobs in the United States. We cannot afford our budding entrepreneurs to be shut out of what would be an open market and be denied the opportunity to succeed. Not when their existence is so vital to our national economy.

We should not be shutting them out. Instead, we should be opening doors and shepherding their growth to ensure continued prosperity.

There are many reasons for the failure to break the stranglehold on Federal contracting process. In response, H.R. 1873 takes several necessary steps to address some key causes. H.R. 1873 seeks to break down the barriers for countless entrepreneurs and small businesses that are on the road to opportunity.

First, the bill bans contract bundling. Past practice has been to combine two or more smaller contracts into a single, larger package. While this bundling may be administratively convenient, it reduces competition and opportunity for small businesses.

Bundling squeezes small businesses out of the contract competition, benefiting larger, full-scale businesses in the process; and when there is less competition, there is also higher cost on the taxpayer.

To add insult to injury, Federal agencies are skewing the data with respect to small businesses. To give the impression that 23 percent of small business contracting goals are being met, agencies are using contracts awarded to larger companies and including them towards their small business contracting goals. H.R. 1873 seeks to reverse these trends and make it easier for small businesses to compete in the Federal marketplace.

Second, the bill makes an appeals process more accessible. Under current law, small businesses are only allowed to protest the award of a contract if they are directly harmed by it, but they are unlikely to do so given the costs involved in the process. Under the bill, small businesses and trade associations acting on their behalf that are adversely affected, directly or indirectly, by a proposed procurement can now request that the SBA appeal the procurement on their behalf.

H.R. 1873 increases the procurement goals for small businesses. It increases the government-wide goal for the number of contracts awarded to small businesses from 23 to 25 percent, a goal which has not been raised in over 10 years. It also increases from 5 percent to 8 percent the government-wide contracting goals for both disadvantaged and women- owned small businesses.

The bill raises the threshold for small business contract set-asides to the simplified acquisition threshold. It also requires that an independent audit of the Central Contracting Registry be conducted on a biannual basis to ensure that large firms are not misrepresenting themselves as small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for open competition for Federal contracts is immensely important to small businesses. This bill has strong bipartisan support. It passed the Small Business Committee by a voice vote, and it was sequentially referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform where it also passed by a voice vote.

I would like to thank both committees for their hard and thoughtful work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. In particular, I extend my thanks to Chairwoman Velazquez, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Braley, and Chairman Waxman.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of small businesses to our economy, and we must act on this bill without further delay.

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

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

I would just like to respond to the gentleman and my good friend from Florida who serves with me on the Rules Committee. I would like to remind him that while it is true that no Republican amendments by themselves were in order, there certainly was made in order Ranking Member Mr. Chabot's suggested return of amendments the way it was in the Small Business Committee. He paired with Congresswoman Bean of Illinois, with Congressman Shuler of North Carolina and with Mr. Sestak of Pennsylvania in coauthoring three amendments that were, in fact, made in order.

So to say that no Republican suggestions were made in order was simply not totally accurate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, three Democratic amendments and four Republican amendments were not made in order, but a significant number of them are going to be considered today.

We believe that this is, in fact, a very good use of the time of the Members of this House. The Committee on Government Reform is the watchdog committee for this House. They had some issues that they wanted to clarify in the legislation, and I think that the Rules Committee felt that their suggestions had merit in at least two cases.

I also want to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is supported by the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business; the Women's Chamber of Commerce; the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; the Women Impacting Public Policy; the National Small Business Association; and the Associated General Contractors of America.

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker who requests some time who is not yet here, and so I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, in both sessions, the Rules Committee reported a grand total of three open rules that were not appropriation rules. Two of them were open rules with a preprinting requirement. In this session, the new majority, we have already done seven open rules, six with preprinting requirements. And that is just in over 4 months.

Say what you want, we have already had a fairer and far more open process than happened in just the last 2 years of the prior majority's rule, when their party ran this place.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Price from Georgia indicated that he has proposed a rule to get our fiscal house in order, an amendment that would do that. Yet, he has offered that same amendment several times in other pieces of legislation. Every time when it was allowed and came to the floor, his amendment failed.

Further, I would like to just mention the fact that the current majority has, in fact, instigated PAYGO rules in the House of Representatives, and so we have made that the law of the House. We, in fact, are bringing fiscal responsibility to this House on a daily basis, something that the prior party in charge was not able to do over 14 years while they were in charge. In fact, the deficit went up at an astounding rate while they were in control of this institution, and it has been the Democrats who have come back to power and are instigating PAYGO rules and fiscal responsibility in the House of Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for a question.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. The point of my claim was the gentleman's amendment had failed because we have already instituted the PAYGO rules in our rules of the House of Representatives, and we do that on a daily basis.

When the gentleman's party was in power for a number of years, we saw the largest deficit increases in the history of our country, more foreign debt that they piled on to our Nation, and in fact, we are reversing the course that they set out in their prior control of Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my good friend from Texas and state the committee considered his amendment, proposed amendment, and rejected it for a large reason, because we feel that it is important to make companies certify that they are, in fact, small businesses, that there have been mistakes made in the past, that companies have gotten beyond the threshold and have won contracts that they may not be authorized to do.

Just because the Small Business Administration periodically will go and check that, we don't believe that that is enough of a cause to require that other small businesses be shut out of the process because companies that grow beyond the requirements are allowed special treatment.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my close, I just want to assure the Members of Congress that we are, in fact, running the most open process in this Congress, that, in fact, we have provided seven open rules.

Now those rules may have a pre-printing requirement, as Mr. Diaz- Balart mentioned, the gentleman from Florida. In fact, though, requiring a pre-printing requirement allows every Member who desires to put forward an idea to come and have their ideas presented to the House. That is much more than what happened in the prior Congress, when they were in charge. We are keeping our commitment to running an open process.

As I mentioned, this legislation is very worthy of this rule and of passage. As I mentioned, small businesses have not received their fair share of Federal Government contracts, despite their importance to our economy. The bill before us today, H.R. 1873, addresses some of the key causes.

By making a few targeted reforms to the procurement process, we can help thousands of small businesses and give a much-needed jolt to our national economy. We must continue to shepherd our small businesses to give them every opportunity to succeed for today and for tomorrows yet to come. This bill will move us in that direction, and a small business will be that much closer to making their dreams of prosperity a reality.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple sense of Congress stressing the importance of interoperability in emergency communications.

We all know the importance of overcoming interoperability problems, which have been prevalent for years but only brought to light due to the 9/11 tragedy.

In this day and age, Mr. Chairman, it is critical that our first responders be able to communicate with each other in the field. The reality, however, is that firefighters, police and other emergency responders simply cannot communicate during times of emergency.

For example, police chiefs in my district have informed me that officers are forced to communicate on their cell phones literally from across the street because their radios cannot operate on the same frequency; and, recently, radio communications were ineffective and created an extremely dangerous situation in the 2006 canyon fire that devastated 34,000 acres in the western portion of Stanislaus County.

The need for improved emergency communications is not new. Whether we are talking about wilderness, wildfires, hurricanes or other disaster, or even day-to-day events, the same interoperability problems exist for the large communities as they do for the smallest.

Large cities are receiving the bulk of homeland security funding for interoperable communications. In many instances, that is rightly the case. But interoperability is a problem that permeates across the country and also affects our smaller communities. Smaller communities face the exact same problems, yet only receive a fraction of the funding and the attention that they need. As a result, smaller communities are left behind and are forced to do the best they can with what they've got.

In Stanislaus County, for example, the county was able to build the architecture for one channel through which all responders in the field can communicate. However, only one person can talk at a time. We can and need, Mr. Chairman, to do better.

The point of this amendment is simply to stress the importance of achieving local, regional and national interoperability plans and the impacts they have on the ongoing efforts in communities across the country.

Simply stated, localities and smaller communities matter as well, and their efforts to address interoperability should not be ignored by the Department of Homeland Security.

I want to make one other statement, Mr. Chairman. In the year 2000, FEMA issued a report that outlined the three greatest disaster scenarios that might befall the United States: a terror attack in New York, a hurricane that would hit New Orleans, and an earthquake on the Hayward fault in the east bay of California that would affect the California delta and flood massive lands near my area.

Well, the first two scenarios have, in fact, taken place, as we all know, and the third is still a very grave possibility. If, in fact, we have an earthquake on the Hayward fault in Northern California, the evacuation area would very likely be my area. Another area affected would be the San Joaquin delta in San Joaquin County.

All of this needs to be addressed, Mr. Chairman, and interoperability is the third awaiting disaster that could hit us anytime with an earthquake.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that we adopt this amendment and that Homeland Security help prepare California for the third disaster that FEMA's already noted could befall the United States at any time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York and also the gentleman from Texas for their support.

This is an important amendment. It needs to state clearly, this bill needs to

state clearly that the Congress supports finding a resolution to interoperability conflicts that we have been besieged with. This is a very specific problem, as outlined in the FEMA report.

I thank Chairman Dingell and Chairman Thompson for both appearing before my constituents and hearing this problem and also agreeing to shepherd this resolution through the House.

I encourage adoption of my amendment.

Mr. DOYLE, Madam Chairman, My colleagues who were with us last year, and frankly, I'm glad we have so many new faces, but my colleagues who were with us last year will recall my commitment to protecting local telecommunications resources and making sure decisions are made where they are best made.

That's why I'm glad to talk about this important issue. Spectrum itself is nearly infinite. But in terms of what's usable, what's worth investing in is much more limited.

Which is why we must challenge everyone who uses our airwaves to do so in the most efficient way possible. And that's why efforts to make public safety's communications interoperable, redundant and more effective are so critical to our Nation's first responders, and ultimately the American public. The days when government hands money over to people who don't understand technology to make choices between inefficient and expensive dead-end radios should be long gone.

My time is short, but we must take the best of what we have learned from the commercial space like interoperability and cost-effective technology and merge it with the best of public safety's communications legacy such as rock-solid dependability.

By passing this amendment today, Congress will be saying that we support innovative, forward-looking, technologically-neutral solutions, including IP-Based solutions.

And I believe we are saying that the Department of Homeland Security should follow all of the recommendations that the Government Accountability Office made earlier this year, and especially the one that the administration rejected--that first responders need to have the flexibility to take advantage of technological innovations that could advance the state of interoperability.

We need accountability and measurable goals from any and all programs that fund interoperability so that we can ensure that the money is being spent wisely. The Department of Homeland Security has told us we need to wait 15 years to get interoperability--it's clear to me that we need to get interoperable communications by any means necessary, even if it means relying on expertise outside Homeland Security and within other agencies like the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to remember the late Marjorie Kathleen Heller. Known to all as ``Peggy,'' she was a wonderful friend, a remarkable teacher, an outstanding mother, and an extraordinary member of our community in Atwater, California. At the age of 91, Peggy Heller passed away on Friday, April 20, 2007.

This occasion is particularly personal to me because Peggy Heller was my reading teacher in the third grade. She taught me to read in a small silver trailer on the playground of Elmer Wood Elementary School in Atwater. She was an inspiring woman, a great friend, and I never knew her to have a bad day. Peggy's love for children was evident in her words, her generosity, and her entire persona. She was a pillar of the community, an amazing educator and a dear friend who will be missed by everyone in our community.

Peggy Heller was born in Oakland, California, on June 15, 1915, to Walter and Mac Gernreich. She graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1935 at the age of 19 and began teaching a year later at South Fork Union High School in Miranda, California. In 1938, she married Jim Heller and they moved to Atwater, California.

Peggy devoted her life to the field of education and to her community. During the early years of her sons' lives, she worked as a substitute teacher at Livingston High School. She later began her work as a full-time teacher in Atwater in 1943. While working as a third grade teacher, the superintendent, Mr. Tom Olaeta, suggested she pursue her interests in reading instruction. She became Merced County's first reading specialist in 1955 and later earned her reading teacher's credentials in 1968.

Many of the instructional approaches Peggy used as a teacher have now been implemented in schools across the Central Valley. She loved and respected children and strived to instill a positive feeling of self worth in each of them. She was also a mentor-teacher long before the idea was popular and she always assisted those who came to her for advice. She devoted countless hours to tutoring students and assisting teachers before, after school and on the weekends. She effortlessly helped diagnose and remediate students' reading troubles. She is an inspiration to many teachers, not only in Merced County, but to the State of California. Peggy believed each member of the school staff played a vital role in the education of youngsters. Not only did Peggy work hard in her classroom, she graciously hosted many special occasions for teachers such as Christmas get-togethers and retirement teas. Even though Peggy was the resident expert on reading instruction, her inquisitive nature led her to constantly read journals and books about education. She attended classes and seminars often at her own expense and she always shared her knowledge with others.

In 1981, after 45 years of teaching, Peggy retired, briefly. She was called upon to teach English as a second language, which she did with much success. In 1987, Peggy was appointed supervisor for Chapman College.

Aside from the fact that Peggy was an outstanding professional educator, she and her husband were great humanitarians. Throughout the years she served our community in a variety of capacities. She was responsible for forming the Atwater Recreation Commission and served as its first chairwoman. During her tenure as chairwoman, the commission built Ralston Park and Heller Park. She served on the County Recreation Commission, too. Both Peggy's and Jim's interest in Atwater's youth was shown by their effort to organize fundraisers for a new public swimming pool, the Atwater Plunge. They even housed Red Cross swimming instructors for many summers. She and her friends started a club for teens and taught dancing on Friday nights. The Hellers also helped Atwater develop good relations with Castle Air Force Base and they helped find housing for and entertained military personnel. Peggy was an active participant in the Girl Scouts of America, Parent Teachers Associations, International Reading Association, American Association of University Women, Retired Teachers, Atwater Women's Club, Merced County Historical Society and Bloss Historical Society.

Peggy received many awards for her service to the community and her work as an educator. The National Education Association named Peggy ``Outstanding Teacher at the Intermediate Level'' in central California in March of 1966 and presented her with the Golden Apple, of which she earned several. She received Atwater's ``Mother of the Year'' award and was named ``Woman of Distinction'' in 1991 by Soroptomist. In 1995, she was given the ultimate honor of dedicating a new school in her name, the Peggy Heller Elementary School in Atwater. Later that year she received recognition from the State legislature during Women's History Month for her work with Project Cherish in Atwater. In 1999, as a member of the California State Assembly, I named Peggy ``Woman of the Year'' for the 26th District.

Peggy Heller was preceded in death by her grandson Brian Boru in 1983 and her husband Jim in 1985. Today, she is survived by her son Jim and his wife Barbara, and her son Brian and his wife Dee. She also leaves behind her grandchildren Jim III and his wife Kathy, Randall and his wife Diana, Christopher and his wife Amy, Tamera and her husband Mark Johnson, and Kandace and her husband Ron Osborn. Also surviving are her 12 great-grandchildren Spencer, James IV, Randall, Nicole, Joshua and Lindsay Heller, Sophia Heller, Samantha, Mason and Tyler Johnson, and Jared and Courtney Osborn. Lastly, Peggy is survived by her caregivers Jeffrey Lawton, Mary McMurry and Jackie Benner.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to join the community of Atwater in recognizing Marjorie ``Peggy'' Kathleen Heller. Our community benefits greatly from the example she set throughout her lifetime of service as an educator who dedicated her life to her community and her family.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 318 provides for consideration of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Science and Technology.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read.

The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for all three amendments that were submitted for consideration. The first amendment to be debated on the floor will be that of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the talent, intellect and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people have made this Nation the leader in economic and technological advancements. In fact, high-tech industries drive economic growth around the world.

Every day, however, my constituents tell me the United States has fallen further and further behind our competitors in Europe and Asia. The United States continues to lead the world in many statistical categories such as R&D spending and the number of scientists and engineers; however, the rest of the world is increasing its capacity, its R&D investments, and its will to catch up with us.

Other countries such as China and India are pouring resources into their scientific and technological infrastructure at staggering rates, which is increasing their ability to compete with us in the global economy.

For example, in South Korea, 38 percent of undergraduates received their degrees in science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47 percent. In China, it is 50 percent, and in Singapore, it is 67 percent. In the United States, only 15 percent of undergraduates receive a degree in science or engineering. More telling is the fact that approximately one-third of U.S. students intending to major in engineering switch majors to something else before graduating.

Madam Speaker, the warning signs could not be any clearer. Our leadership in the race to discovery is being challenged at unparalleled levels around the world. We cannot ignore this challenge, and we cannot afford to ignore this challenge.

Our society has always depended on innovation and discovery. It has depended on pioneers who push themselves to their intellectual and physical limits to find the hidden paths that lead to that discovery. Over 125 years ago, Thomas Edison who famously quipped that he had not failed but instead had found 10,000 different ways that would not work invented the light bulb, and it was Albert Einstein who once said, ``I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.''

My point, Madam Speaker, is that our advancement as a society depends on leading the search for the unknown. Americans must continue to research, we must continue to develop, and we must continue to innovate in order to create new and thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs and a better future for our children. To do that, however, we must continue to reinvigorate America's commitment to this discovery process.

The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report outlines specific recommendations to enhance the scientific building blocks in the United States. The bill we have today before us, H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act, draws directly from several of those recommendations.

To paraphrase the report, the report recommends that we strengthen our Nation's commitment to research to maintain the flow of new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security and enhance our quality of life. In that regard, H.R. 363 seeks to improve Federal support for scientific research and education in order to maintain our position as the unequivocal global leader in innovation.

H.R. 363 creates a program at the National Science Foundation to award grants to scientists and engineers at the early stage of their careers at colleges, universities and research institutions across the country. Young researchers are eligible to receive up to $80,000 per year for 5 years.

The awards are granted on a competitive basis and are based on intellectual merit of their work, the innovative or transformative nature of the proposed research, and the researcher's potential for leadership at the frontiers of knowledge.

The bill requires that the National Science Foundation director allocate at least 3.5 percent of its research funding for this grant program. The bill also creates a similar program in the Department of Energy for which $25 million is authorized.

H.R. 363 directs NSF to allocate at least 1.5 percent of its research funds

to an integrated graduate education and research training program. This program provides support to those scientists and engineers who will pursue careers in research and education.

Just this week, Madam Speaker, the president of my alma mater from the University of Maryland, Dr. Mote, came by to describe some of the challenges for young researchers in just this area. It is so appropriate that Congress is taking this action at this time.

This bill establishes the Presidential Innovation Award, an award which will recognize scientists and engineers who develop unique innovations in the national interests. The bill creates a national coordination office within the Office of Science and Technology Policy to better coordinate research efforts, and, finally, H.R. 363 directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to provide a report to Congress on the efforts to attract and retain young researchers.

But this bill goes far beyond the long-lasting impacts of development and innovation. It goes far beyond our ability to create jobs and compete in a global economy. It will plant the seeds of hope for a better tomorrow in communities across this country.

I know firsthand what research funding will be able to do. The University of California in Merced, my hometown in my district, is on the cutting edge of several research projects where additional funding could spur the next big breakthrough. UC Merced is a leader in solar concentration technologies, just one of the many of our ongoing projects. To date, this research has largely been supported through public and private partnerships. However, increased research funding could potentially improve the efficiencies of solar power and solar thermal technologies; and if efficiency and affordability are within our grasp, we can decrease the carbon emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, certainly worthy goals for this Congress. This is but one example of many research efforts across our country that has the potential to define and shape tomorrow.

It is this type of project that would benefit from the funding of this bill, but how many more ideas could become reality if our researchers only had the tools that they sorely need? How many more concepts, how many more ideas are out there on the horizon waiting to be discovered?

Madam Speaker, it is our duty and our responsibility as legislators to help make those dreams and ideas become a reality.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I turn it over and yield to my colleague from Texas, I just want to respond to the gentleman and say, on an ongoing basis, we have heard the same drumbeat that we are somehow trampling on the rights of the minority. It is true that this is a structured rule, but it is also true, as it was with the last bill, that every amendment that has been offered has been granted. Certainly that is in the spirit of collegiality and cooperation that this House deserves. We have gone far beyond what is required. This is not an open rule, but certainly we have done more open rules in this committee than was done in the past Congress already in the first few months. We are doing everything we can to accommodate the minority in both spirit and practice.

So I say to my colleague, my good friend from the State of Washington, that he has had the opportunity, every Member, I have heard no one who is clamoring for an amendment to this bill. In fact, all three amendments that were offered to the committee were, in fact, granted, and it seems to me that we are offering cooperation on a silver platter. We just need our colleagues to say ``yes'' and agree that we have done that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I acknowledge this is not an open rule, this is a structured rule. That is what we put forward. In the 12 or 14 years that the current minority was in power, we saw a declining, ever-declining number of what he considers an open rule.

As I said before, we granted every amendment that came forward in the

last two bills. Certainly that is in the spirit of cooperation that we bring this legislation to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

We have no more requests for time and are prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the fantastic remarks of my colleague, Mr. Israel, from the great State of New York.

I also want to respond to my colleague in closing, that while we hear continued complaints about the rule process this session, we have granted the vast majority of amendments that have been offered on these last two bills. In fact, I think every amendment that was offered was granted to the minority. There is certainly no shortage of allowing the minority to have input, both in the committee and here on the floor.

I just get to the heart of the topic at hand today, and that is, quite simply, we must, we must reinvigorate America's commitment to discovery. Where there is research to be done, we must undertake it. There is opportunity to be pursued. This country has always pursued the opportunities presented. We have been an innovator in the last 225 years that we have been in existence, and we must continue to pursue it.

When a technological breakthrough lies far away on the horizon, we must seek it and discover it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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