Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, the King amendment No. 22, I was unavoidably detained and am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 391, the Kucinich amendment, I was unavoidably detained and am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Lantos

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), for 10 years of leadership in this body on a very critical and important issue.

The opposition today just simply neglects the reality that these bills do not affect safety at all. Rather, they will improve the climate of business, and they will improve the opportunity for safety because all small business owners know that good safety makes good business, and safety is not what this is about.

OSHA was founded to establish a common guideline to improve safety and, hence, to improve competitiveness nationally. But it has mutated into an organization that is seen in the business community, frankly, with fear, as one that comes with retribution, of uncertainty and subjectivity in enforcement. Each piece of legislation being considered today makes commonsense and practical reforms to the Occupation Safety and Health Administration and to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to restore original intent of the act from 34 years ago. Moreover, it will restore the context and the spirit of the original intent of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my professional life in manufacturing, working with small manufacturers who were competing in the global economy and dealing with compliance issues. I have seen this lost original intent firsthand. What was intended to provide that commonsense standard is now a confusing mass of regulations that create cost, that cost us jobs, and that damage competitiveness without affecting one aspect of safety. Indeed, 50 percent of the regulations that OSHA can shut down a business with have nothing to do with safety, but paperwork compliance.

I have watched subjectivity and enforcement where one of my clients, who had never had a lost day for a safety violation, was violated repeatedly because this perfect facility had railings that were 34'' instead of 36'' tall all around their machining center, costing them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Another client, who had over 100 identified safety violations that I personally noted in my report to their corporate parent, was never violated because of personal relationships and subjectivity in that particular locale. This is a travesty and misses the entire point because the workers in the one location were adversely affected by a lack of context and enforcement.

Ironically, the fiercest opponents of this small business-friendly agenda have never created a job, have never met a payroll, and have never sacrificed personally to ensure their employees have had their benefits and had their salaries. I have done that, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has done that, and those who are supporting this legislation in many cases have themselves.

OSHA serves an important function, but I remember one thing one of my supporters, Riley, said, who started a business from scratch and has the great loyalty of hundreds of his employees in his small business: he believes that nobody should run a Federal regulatory agency or even serve in Federal elected office unless they have created one job, because it changes your world view and your outlook regardless of party.

OSHA was created to protect the safety of the workforce and not to strangle small business. This legislation represents four commonsense solutions for fine-tuning OSHA to improve protection for our workers, while reducing unnecessary burdens on small business.

H.R. 739 allows the review commission to waive the hard 15-day rule appeals deadline for cause. As my colleague previously mentioned, it removes ambiguities in the current law and brings context to specific situations so that there can be a climate of dialogue and compliance. Most small businesses cannot afford to maintain in-house compliance professionals, and an OSHA citation can be intimidating and confusing, regularly causing small businesses to miss that 15-day window inadvertently. This resolution simply permits a waiver for demonstrated causes or mistake.

H.R. 740 increases the number of commissioners on the review commission, not to stack the deck, but to allow the backlog of cases to be able to be removed so these businesses can get back to creating jobs, generating growth in our economy, and ultimately providing a future for the generation following behind us.

Currently, there are citations on appeal that have been unresolved for 8 years. We cannot compete in a climate like this. Stalemate serves no one.

H.R. 741 clarifies the original congressional intent by affirmatively declaring that a review court must defer to the review commission. This brings it back into original statutory compliance and original intent. The review commission was designed to be the independent arbiter or judge. OSHA, on the other hand, serves as the prosecutor. Deference by a reviewing court should be given to the independent arbiter, not to the prosecutor.

Finally, H.R. 742 allows a small business to recover its legal costs if it wins. Under current law, a small business is often faced with simply paying the penalty because it is cheaper than fighting. Too often our small businesses suffer devastating financial losses just to prove they are innocent.

In the case I mentioned previously that had no safety violations, or no loss time for safety violations but was violated on silly paperwork compliance, there were jobs lost, or actually not created, more correctly, because of those tens of thousands of dollars spent paying attorneys instead of paying working families.

As a former small business owner, I know the important impact of this legislation, what it will have on our small businesses, on the safety of their employees, and on the generating of additional hopeful jobs for working families.

I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote in favor of this rule and to support this critical underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of Title II in my legislation, H.R. 458. Title II regulates so-called ``military lenders,'' and provides significant safeguards to protect our armed services personnel from abusive consumer credit lending and collection practices.

A number of lenders target military personnel. While most lenders treat their customers fairly, some of these creditors engage in deceptive sales and marketing practices and employ coercive debt collection practices. I know about companies like Pioneer Financial that engage in predatory lending with high rates and hidden fees and frequently refiance loans to generate more fees for the lender while providing little or no benefit to the service member.

Like many others, I myself, Mr. Speaker, while a young officer in the military, was misled into thinking that the military was endorsing these types of lenders and loan products. I also know that in some instances, lenders go as far to garnish military personnel's wages or require them to agree to have their loan repaid through the allotment system.

Predatory lenders have contacted or threatened to contact the borrower's commanding officer or others in the borrower's chain of command in order to collect debt. Furthermore, some lenders have required borrowers to sign documents as a condition of obtaining the loan that purportedly waive their legal rights, including the requirement that the borrower submit to mandatory arbitration of any dispute instead of being able to institute a legal action.

Title II in H.R. 458 recognizes that many military personnel do not understand or appreciate their borrowing options or rights or what can happen if they do not carefully manage their finances after taking out a loan to pay off or consolidate old debts. Accordingly, under Title II, prior to the consummation of a loan transaction, military lenders also would be required to provide detailed disclosures.

Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, each of the Members who serve on both the House Armed Services and Financial Services Committees expressed concerns about these types of lenders, including predatory lenders and some payday lenders, taking advantage of members of our armed forces.

As the newest Member to serve on both committees, I endorsed my colleagues' views by adding these special protections for military borrowers in Title II of H.R. 458, to ensure that all high interest lenders comply with essential safeguards that protect our men and women in the armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, June 30, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity this evening to discuss the call to duty that our armed services have accepted, the importance of standing firm in the global war on terror, a war that was imposed upon us by those who seek to destroy not only our way of life but remove all vestiges of a culture of freedom, of tolerance and opportunity from this world.

It is an interesting thing that I have seen happen in the United States since the terrible days following September 11. At that time, our national populace was galvanized. The war was close at hand. People understood the pain. We all knew the emotions we feel as we saw the images over and over again on television, stories of friends and family who were touched directly by the loss of relatives or friends who had been wounded or hurt during that attack.

Now we have moved back into comfortable familiarity. We are forgetting the importance of this was a war that was imposed upon us, one, I might add, that was coming whether we liked it or not.

The burgeoning of radical Islamic extremist movements throughout southwest Asia, principally funded by Wahabist groups, groups like al Qaeda, other affiliated groups, were spreading quietly across the world, across the latitude 10-40 window and, yes, right even in the United States, even in cases where taxpayer dollars were going to institutions and organizations that were promoting activities that were destructive to our national way of life.

Indeed, as President Bush said our freedoms not only were used against us in the initial assault of September 11, but our freedoms are used against us with salacious speech, literally calls to Jihad taking place right inside the border of this country.

What do we hear from the other side in this body speaking of tolerance, of faith, of ethnic diversity, of belief? We hear nothing. We hear nothing to confront that reality.

Indeed, a poignant moment came for me in the War on Terror, a war that is equally as important to this future of this Nation as the struggle was in the Second World War.

This past Tuesday, I had a singular and great honor. I was invited to attend the funeral of Sergeant Michael McNulty who served in America's premier counterterrorist organization. He served all around the world, helping us to have the freedom to speak here tonight, that people could sleep in their beds safe, knowing that their men and women on the front lines were willing to lay their lives down, to go into harm's way, to stand firm, to train, to send a message to the world that our freedoms will be defended.

As the honor guard fired its volley, as the bandsman played Taps, as Mrs. McNulty wept with the four children next to her, the parents of Michael sitting behind them, looking at that flag-draped casket, we looked at a casket of a man who died fighting to preserve these freedoms. He died in western Iraq, but in the background what I heard was the sound of jets leaving Reagan National Airport, traffic on the roads, the sounds of tourists in the distance. I came back over to the city, and people were going about their day-to-day business, completely unaware, oblivious to the struggle that was going on with the exception of the occasional salacious news report that the liberal media puts into the newspapers or on television, not talking about the successes, not talking about the commitment, not talking about what is at stake for the future of this country and why, as a Nation, we must rise up and have a sense of duty, a sense of resolve and a sense of commitment.

One thing that we have learned in our history is to appease those who stand against our way of life, guarantees that the conflict that we seek to avoid will be brought upon us. Yet, we are not talking about this now. We hear empty rhetoric about exit strategies. We want to point to questions about the nature and motivation of, well, do we really want to be in this conflict.

Mr. Speaker, I need to share with my colleagues, we did not choose to be in this conflict. This conflict was imposed upon us by groups that were intent on bringing it to our shores, and men like Sergeant McNulty were among those who are working hard to keep it from our shores, especially since September 11.

As I look at this, one thing that I would share is that the best measure of the effectiveness and the belief in this mission is not public opinion polls to people who are not receiving the full story about this fight for freedom, this commitment to duty on the part of our Armed Services, the call to duty that I believe is upon every citizen of this country, as it has been for every generation that has come before us. What we need to understand is the best measure of belief in this mission in an army of the people who volunteer to serve is their morale and their commitment to stay the course.

Contrary to much of the empty rhetoric and hot air that I hear from many of the talking heads who have never served this country, I might add and have no concept of the things they speak of as we talk about these alleged problems, answer me this, Mr. Speaker. Why are active components exceeding their retention levels over 100 percent? Why is the Army, the active Army, this month in June going to exceed 100 percent of its initial recruitment quota? It is because the message is getting out.

I have talked to over 400 soldiers and Marines since I have been in Congress this session. I have walked the halls with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), my colleague who is going to share his views in a moment, and talked to wounded Marines. We have spoken with wounded soldiers. Over and over, we hear one thing: a commitment to their command; a belief in the mission; and a question of why the media is not accurately reporting the successes of our soldiers, our Marines, our airmen and our sailors in the theater.

We are not talking about the restoration of infrastructure that frankly did not exist in the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. We are not talking in the national media about the bringing for the first time in the history of this country true women's suffrage and women's rights and interest in the opportunity and the hope for families in Afghanistan. For the first time in the history of that part of the world, women went to the polls and chose a duly elected leader of the country.

One of my West Point classmates jokingly described Iraq as he found it, as a country run by the Sopranos. It was not run by the rule of law. It was run by thuggery, by terror, by intimidation and by corruption. The Iraqi people were standing up. They are standing up and they are taking hold, and our soldiers and our Marines, our airmen and our sailors see that every day as they serve. They see that commitment. They see the fact that the Iraqi people want us to stand by them as they stand up so they can stand completely on their own.

There are many things that we are going to address in this time tonight, but the first thing that I would like to do is introduce my colleague who has seen firsthand many of the exciting developments. He has seen firsthand the work of our civil affairs soldiers, the work of people in communities, helping them to rebuild, to have a hope and a future, a desire to raise their children and the quality of the people that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his commitment to our troops, to the families in his district, and in the country as a whole.

I did find some of the time during both evacuations interesting. Certainly, when we were walking out of the Capitol and moving down the hill, there were gentlemen standing next to me and a policeman came up and said run. I turned to him, along with two colleagues from the other side of the aisle, and we said no. I was asked why not, and I said the first reason why not is to run in a situation like that is only going to create more disorder as opposed to calm. And the second thing, more importantly, is from a standpoint of leadership and the example that is set not only for people in this Nation, for the confidence they can have of their leadership, but more than that, the world is watching this country. It is important that the rhetoric in this Chamber and the way that Members act in this Chamber, their words and their actions reflect a commitment to freedom, to liberty and a resolve to stand firm.

Somebody who has shown great resolve and steadfast leadership in dealing with the war on terror with unconventional warfare and threats emerging in this hemisphere and the other side of the world is the chairman of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare who also now serves as our chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). He has become a good friend and is nationally recognized, and certainly recognized in this body as a leader and also a committed student of this issue, and also committed to bringing about all of his energies toward ultimate victory to preserve our freedom here at home and expand freedom in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for his remarks and thank him and his team for being willing before September 11 to engage in groundbreaking work in this body to bring to light this issue.

It was important to mention that aviator's comments. One of the things that is not done enough in this body or frankly in the national media is to talk about the tremendous successes our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are seeing on the ground, not seeing simply where our troops are involved, but also with the Iraqis helping themselves. We have had historic events over the last 3 years that have been constantly pooh-poohed by those in the media, by pundits, by those who have never served and without experience in that part of the whole. Always being prophets of doom and gloom, always seeking to minimize or remove every opportunity for success. It is almost as if some of the commentators, some in this own body, would rather have this country defeated and have this Islamic extremism rampant throughout the world, bringing a cloak of darkness over every area in the world where the light of freedom has begun to shine.

I want to talk about some of the successes because they are significant when we look at the accomplishments of the troops and of the Iraqi people themselves.

A year ago yesterday, there was a formal transfer of power. Iraq had a provisional government. They were in charge. More than that, we followed in January with a historic election where people freely chose their leader. Everybody was able to come out and vote, and 8 million Iraqis responded. America saw the benefit, saw the eyes and the faces of the men and women who went to vote, the tears shed by those who cast that ballot for the first time, who had lived in a culture of fear, hopelessness, and had an ambivalent feeling toward government, now were able to come together under rule of law.

It took a few months to form a government. There are hundreds of tribes, thousands of clan groups, three major religious ethnic groups, yet they formed a government. The commentators and some of the people who are even in this body would say it is a failure because it took so long. If that were true, why did it take the United States when it formed from 1776 to 1787 to even have its Constitution, and then a Civil War many years later, 87 years later, to bring about the true unification of this Nation.

I think the accomplishments of the Iraqi people are remarkable considering the pressures they are under. We will see a constitution that they will write and implement and, finally, full parliamentary elections where the Iraqi people elect that government internally in the country. Polling shows this clearly on the Iraq streets; people have confidence in their local leaders. There are people volunteering for the police force. The power grid is coming back. Services are being delivered in some communities for the first time in over a decade; in some places, for the first time ever.

These are the projects and the work, the bulk of the time that our men and women in uniform have invested themselves in, to rebuild that infrastructure, strengthen this community and provide a helping hand, something that our men and women in uniform have done since the beginning of this country.

Setting a timetable on this insurgency is wrong, and oftentimes I think we do a disservice when we say the Iraqi troops are not standing up to the quality of our Special Operations Forces. That is not the measure of success. The measure of success is that they can adequately protect their communities, that the people in the neighborhoods have confidence in them, and

we have much to be very encouraged and very pleased about.

At this time last year, only one battalion of the new Iraqi Army were trained and equipped. Now there are over 100. There are over 80,000 other forces in border police, Ministry of Interior forces, and facilities protection. The Iraqi government took it upon itself to develop pipeline protection battalions to protect their energy infrastructure.

The jihadists are extremely violent, and only maybe 1 percent of the population. They are formed of a unique core of jihadists who have come from the outside who perform the most spectacular attacks against the Iraqi people, with al-Zarqawi being the best-known leader of that group; former Baathists who were disenfranchised, and frankly corrupt, vulgar, violent politicians whose interest is not the future of Iraq, but is to have power restored under that old regime.

The positive signs we see are dialogue between the Shiite and the Sunnis. Even those who seek to reject the regime are in dialogue now. They understand that militarily there is no possible way that they can win. And the enemies of freedom in these Islamic extremist terrorist groups around the world understand very clearly that the battle for their future has to be won in Iraq. If they cannot win in Iraq against the Iraqi people, then their ideology of hatred, murder, retribution, and of intolerance will be swept away and defeated and cast, to use the President's words, literally on the ash heap of history, where it belongs.

One of the exciting signs that we have seen, 2 weeks ago, Australian hostage Douglas Wood was rescued. No American forces were involved whatsoever. Iraqi security forces receiving intelligence from Iraqi citizens in the neighborhoods passed through the police chain of command, were moved along, and they rescued Douglas Wood. They set him free.

They captured terrorists in the process, and I think the positive thing is they are willing to shed their blood to build their country and to provide freedom. And working together, we will be able to decrease our forces. In fact, one thing that is exciting to see is our forces are already reduced 21,000 troops since January. That is a positive step.

As we reduce our footprint, they are increasing, they are strengthening; and we are not going to walk away from this until they have the infrastructure in place to be able to stand alone, and I think they are going to be an exciting partner in the future.

There are a small group of regime elements, as I mentioned before, that are resisting at every turn, every opportunity to bring freedom to the very people these folks seek to govern. But they do not seek to govern from an American world view, from a Western world view based on the rule of law. They seek to govern through corruption, through extortion, and through violence. In fact, General John Vines, commander of the Multinational Corps in Iraq said that if they had a bumper sticker, the former Baathists, the Baath Party rejectionists, it would go something like this: ``If you liked Saddam, you'll love us,'' because they simply want to resume power.

I think that there are some other indicators. I mentioned recruiting and retention, America's active Army components, especially units that are deployed in theater where troops continue to reenlist, to stay with their units. That is also applicable to the Iraqi security forces and the police. Recruiting remains strong. Even though attacks on Iraqis, Iraqi security forces, have approached 70 a day in some cases, that trend of men coming to join remains very strong.

One of the things I deeply regretted when the police station bombing took place on February 18 and 118 people were killed, the news media sent their cameras out to show that carnage of that heinous act of murder, that atrocity. What they did not tell us, Mr. Speaker, was that the next day over 300 men were there to volunteer because their commitment was not to let thugs rule their neighborhoods and rule their cities.

This is a tremendous struggle for the future of a free and democratic Iraq, freedom in that region, and ultimately one that leads to freedom at home to deal with the most pernicious threat that this Nation has faced since World War II.

I think another indicator that is very positive as well is the fact that information from Iraqi citizens themselves is coming forward. Throughout the region, people tire of this. They want a stable life. They want a life of hope, a life of opportunity, a life of freedom. The fact that people braved threats of death in many communities to go out and vote, to cast that vote, shows they want to provide their children with that hope and opportunity. And I think it is a tremendous disservice to have talk in this Chamber about withdrawal timetables.

Even Jon Corzine, Democratic Senator from New Jersey, made a statement today understanding very clearly, regardless of one's views, and I think there is always opportunity and one of the things we have in this body is the great opportunity to disagree openly because on both sides of the aisle on differing view points even within our own caucuses or conferences, we have a deference to the rule of law.

That is not the case for the majority of the world; and when the world watches us, they are viewing our rhetoric through the filter of their world view. When we denigrate our leadership or the regrettable comments of the leadership of the minority party in the House and the Senate about our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines; they are fueling the propaganda machine that emboldens the enemies of our way of life, our freedom, and ultimately that rule of law that we cherish so deeply.

I think that it is important that we know that an exit strategy is simply this: it is winning the war. It is sending a clear message of national resolve. It is having a President who is willing to lead from the front, a Defense Secretary who is willing to lead from the front.

Certainly our commanders in the field understand that clearly. I think it is incumbent upon those in this body that we measure our rhetoric, that we understand that the world is watching, and not use our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines as human shields to advance a political agenda, regardless of which side of the aisle that comes from, Mr. Speaker. What is most important is that we stand united, that we stand firm, and that this Nation has given its word to a people that we are going to stand with them until they are free.

And what makes this Nation strong is its ability, the power, and the will to keep its word and to keep its promise. And I think that that is fundamentally important. And I hear that not only, Mr. Speaker, from people from Iraq, from citizens in my district. I hear it from the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are serving this Nation right now.

Victory sets its own schedule, wrote Brendan Miniter in a June 21 Wall Street Journal column. I think it is important to understand that determination, as many of us in this body know who have run tough races, many of us who have served in the military know, that prevailing in a situation or a circumstance, a struggle that one might face in life, means staying that course, having that sense of duty and commitment, whether it is to a member of our family, whether it is to our community, whether it is to fellow servicemembers if we are serving in the military at some point. Making that commitment to stand fast is a tremendous elixir and gives hope to those also and infectious enthusiasm to stand firm, and that is the message that we need to send.

I believe that we have a call to duty in this country to finish this job. We have a duty to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to stand behind them; and we have a duty to the American people and, frankly, to the free world to stand firm.

I would like to take a moment before I close to recognize the accomplishments of one particular unit. We have a unit from the great Commonwealth of Kentucky that distinguished itself and its mission serving, these citizen soldiers from the 617th Military Police Company.

It was established in October 2002 and was reorganized as a combat support

military police company from a headquarters detachment of a combat engineer unit. It came about as a result of force structure changes within the Kentucky Army National Guard, quite apart from the war.

The company strength is currently close to 175 soldiers deployed in theater right now with about 80 in the rear detachment. The soldiers of the 617th are employed in the civilian sector with varying occupations that all of us in this body, back in our communities, those watching on C-SPAN can relate to: school teachers, law enforcement officers, nurses, retail sales and management, information technology professionals, college students, even an attorney.

On 16 November of 2004, after completing training and validation at Fort McCoy, the unit departed for Iraq. The unit remains in Baghdad, and their principal purpose there is to conduct route security and convoy security, and they also support two Iraqi highway patrol stations as a backup, as a force to come alongside and to help these units stand up. The 617th has been very successful in their mission, as evidenced by the achievement and the valor of their soldiers who are willing to stay the course, who understand the importance of this mission, who see the fruits and the potential of their service and their sacrifice and that of their comrades. Soldiers in this unit have received three Silver Star Medals; three Bronze Star Medals for Valor; four Army Commendation Medals for Valor; and, additionally, 15 soldiers have received 17 Purple Hearts.

This is not about counting medals; but when a unit has that level of achievement, that speaks to discipline, to esprit, to integrity, to the acceptance and the inculcation of a sense of duty that is being acted out every day that brings great honor to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, to the United States of America, and to the United States Army. And I thank those members of the unit.

I would like to recognize some who distinguish themselves. One of the things that I learned in the military is what one friend said who won the Congressional Medal of Honor, which is, the valor, the commitment, and the discipline and courage of a man or woman is not measured by what they wear on their chest but some who were in a certain place at a certain time who received that recognition. I believe if we were to talk to these soldiers, they would point that out, that they were just there to help their buddies to accomplish that mission and they did what they believed was their duty, that any of their fellow soldiers would have done as well.

First, I would like to recognize Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester of Nashville, Tennessee. She joined the Guard on April 20, 2001. She was awarded the Silver Star for Valor in Combat. Staff Sergeant Timothy Nein of Henryville, Indiana, joined the Kentucky National Guard on November 26, 1996, was awarded the Silver Star for Valor. Sergeant Dustin Morris of Murray, Kentucky, joined the Kentucky Army National Guard as a junior in high school under the split option program. This week, as I speak of that, it reminds me of my own journey into the Army, enlisting 29 years ago on June 21. I look at the sacrifices of these young people. He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal V device for Valor.

Specialist Casey Cooper of Eddyville, Kentucky, joined the Kentucky National Guard after completing 2 years of college at Murray State University, awarded the Bronze Star Medal with V device for Valor. Specialist Jason Mike of Radcliff, Kentucky, joined the Kentucky National Guard after September 17, ``to give back to my country,'' he said. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with V device for Valor.

Specialist Jesse Ordunez of Gilbertsville, Kentucky, joined the Kentucky Army National Guard in March of 2000, awarded the Army Commendation Medal with V device for Valor. And, finally, Specialist Ashley Pullen of Edmonton, Kentucky, joined the Kentucky Army National Guard on December 19, 2001, at the age of 17, the same age I was when I enlisted 29 areas ago while still attending high school. His award was the Bronze Star with V device for Valor.

When I look at the commitment and the service of these young people, with their sense of duty and commitment, as they stand literally at the tip of spear to preserve our freedom, I am thankful that they are there, that Americans can sleep well and safely tonight as we standing with Iraqi people to see a successful mission as we accept that duty and stand with resolve.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and

pass the bill (H.R. 358) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of the Little Rock Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, H.R. 358, and include extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in support of the Little Rock Central High School Desegregation 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act sponsored by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, it is easy in 2005 to lose sight of how far we have come in fewer than 50 years of desegregation. No one will deny, and most also will admit, that we have much work to do. But as we approach 50 years of separation from the mid- to late 1950s, when the real work of desegregation was done, it is worthwhile to pause and reflect. The bill of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) gives us a perfect opportunity to do just that.

A year or so ago, Congress approved awarding a Congressional Gold Medal for the principals of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education lawsuit that heralded the desegregation in the Nation's schools. Today, we will act on legislation to authorize a commemorative coin, noting the first major test of the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown.

The nine African American students who, in the face of violence, were the first to desegregate Little Rock's Central High School, themselves earlier awarded Congressional Gold Medals, took a truly courageous step, later recognized by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he attended the first graduation of African American students from the school a year later.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes the striking in 2007 of as many as 500,000 silver $1 commemorative coins, at no cost to the taxpayers, with surcharges on the sale of the coins dedicated to site improvements at the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, to development of interpretive and educational programs at the site, to historic preservation projects there, and to the establishment of cooperative agreements to preserve or restore the historic character of the Park Street and Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive corridors adjacent to the site.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has 321 cosponsors, amply demonstrating its broad bipartisan appeal. I urge immediate adoption.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2005.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: I am writing concerning H.R. 358, the

``Little Rock Central High School Desegregation 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act,'' which will be scheduled

for floor consideration in the near future.

I acknowledge your committee's jurisdictional interest in

this bill and request your cooperation in moving the bill to

the House floor expeditiously. I agree that your decision to

forego further action on this bill will not prejudice the

Committee on Ways and Means with respect to its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I

would support your request for conferees on those provisions

within your jurisdiction should this bill be the subject of a

House-Senate conference.

I will include a copy of this letter and your response in

the Congressional Record when this bill is considered by the

House. Thank you again for your assistance.

Yours truly,

Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 458) to prevent the sale of abusive insurance and investment products to military personnel, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 458.

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

Today I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that there is a long history of certain companies and agents using abusive sales tactics to sell financial products of dubious value to our members of the armed services. Problems have included abusive and coercive sales tactics, outdated and high-cost products, and a lack of uniform regulatory oversight of these practices on our military bases and posts.

The Pentagon has issued directives intended to prevent these abuses. But with the ongoing confusion over regulatory jurisdiction, the lack of communication between government agencies, and lack of sufficient protection standards for certain financial products, it is clear that the abuses will not stop unless Congress enacts the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act.

Unfortunately, there are a few bad agents in the securities and insurance industry that have been taking advantage of our military personnel by selling them harmful insurance and investment products.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, when I myself was a young officer in the Army, a group of salesmen showed up on post and convinced my fellow soldiers and me that I could begin saving for my retirement by buying into an investment plan that included insurance and mutual funds. I was so impressed with their infomercial-like presentation that I invested what was a lot of money to me at the time. It was not until I got out of the Army and into the business world that I discovered how uncompetitive these products were compared with other opportunities.

While serving as an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, I knew many soldiers who fell victim to such ``contractual plans.''

In my case, I fell for the sales pitch because those agents selling the programs encouraged one of my fellow soldiers to invite me to a presentation. That program included a respected veteran who could show up on post without the post commander's permission. I did not make the decision because I was a financial expert, because I was not, I made the decision because a retired servicemember, whom I respected, working as a salesman, presented this, and he was using referrals from other servicemembers who he convinced it was a good thing.

Because of these types of selling practices, I am pleased to report that today the House will be voting on this reintroduced, bipartisan legislation, H.R. 458, which will protect those preserving our freedom from some unnecessary, high-cost financial products.

This piece of legislation would clarify that State insurance regulators have jurisdiction over insurance sales on military bases within their States. Also, it would ban the sale of contractual mutual funds and require that our military personnel hear about government life insurance programs before buying private life insurance.

This bill would also allow our military post commanders to ban unscrupulous agents from their bases and posts and forward a list of these banned agents to the Department of Defense, and the DOD would compile lists and send them to State departments of insurance for further investigation.

We cannot allow these abusive practices to continue. We must not ask the men and women of our armed services to make sacrifices for our security without doing all that we can to protect their financial futures. You may be pleased to know that in the 108th Congress, this purpose-driven piece of legislation passed overwhelmingly with a vote of 396-2. During this Congress, the Committee on Financial Services reported this bill to protect our servicemen and -women by unanimous vote. This overwhelmingly bipartisan census is the result of strong leadership by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and subcommittee chairman on capital markets, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who led our investigation into abusive practices and bad products.

The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), who worked closely together on the reporting requirements, are to be thanked, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for ensuring appropriate SEC oversight of broker-dealer practices on military posts. Also, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for working on new requirements for high-cost lending. Their hard work and bipartisan leadership is well reflected in the legislation.

Today, I urge my colleagues in the 109th Congress to support this bipartisan bill and vote ``yes'' on the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act and protect our military from these predatory financial products and sales practices.

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his remarks and also heartily agree and hope that the Senate will pass this bill and take it up in an aggressive manner. I thank all the members of the Committee on Financial Services for their support on both sides of the aisle. It was truly a bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding.

I believe that we have much to be pleased about; and contrary to the obstinate obstructionism of the far left, much is being done. There is a lot of talk about how Republicans and Democrats cannot seem to agree on anything, and I do not think that portrays an accurate picture of the work that is being done in the 109th Congress.

So far we have seen several significant pieces of legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. We have watched as a significant number of Democrats have broken ranks to support business and family- friendly legislation.

So what have we been spending our time on? For starters, we have given a helping hand to small businesses by passing class action reform, a permanent repeal to the death tax, and a comprehensive energy policy, all of which contribute to the overall good health of our economy.

More importantly, these measures will help create jobs. Americans want to work. Americans want to earn a paycheck and want to feel like they have contributed to our part of the world.

We in Congress can help Americans do that by continuing to support and pass legislation that creates jobs. Consider this: the energy policy will create 40,000 new construction jobs by building about 27 large clean-coal plants. That will benefit the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Ohio Valley, workers, suppliers, and also manufacturers and energy producers.

It will create 12,000 full-time permanent jobs related to plant operations, and the legislation allows for increased natural gas exploration and development that will create jobs and provide more than $500 million in increased revenue for our economy. The comprehensive energy policy passed with the support of 41 Democrats who believe more in creating jobs and establishing an energy policy than playing petty politics.

Let us also consider the permanent repeal of the death tax which passed with the support of 42 Members of the Democratic Party. They voted to allow small businesses and family farmers to keep jobs and our dollars in communities, rather than sending them to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

There is the highway bill that will create more than 47,000 new jobs for every $1 billion invested in our country's transportation system. Not only does this create jobs, but it increases road safety so that our families and everyone else who travels them can be assured of a safer ride. And 198 Democrats supported this legislation. The minority leader did not, despite the fact that that bill alone will lay a tremendous foundation for future growth and future economic development throughout this land.

Mr. Speaker, 71 Members of the Democratic Party joined with us to pass the Gang Deterrence and Protection Act of 2005, again without the strength or support of their leadership. Gangs are increasingly becoming a problem in nearly every community in the Nation, and we are starting to hear disturbing whispers about gangs that

regularly bring illegal immigrants into this country to boost their gang membership and may be teaming up with terror cells to smuggle in terrorists. This is a serious threat to our national security that we must address.

But what can we expect from our Democratic leadership that continues to insult and denigrate our troops and the mission of our military, those who serve on the front lines? So we continue to be joined by rank-and-file Democrats, like the 54 Members who helped us pass the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, the 42 Members who helped us pass the Border Security Act, and the 122 Democrats who helped us pass the Continuity in Congress Act.

Moreover, 143 Democrats joined with us to support our troops at the tip of the spear, fighting the war on terror to protect our Nation and keep our communities and our homeland safe. They made sure that they ensured our troops have the resources and tools they need to fight and win this war on terror.

Contrary to what the liberal media implies, there is strong bipartisan work in Congress; and there is a lot being accomplished. It is just too bad that the Democratic leadership continues being obstinate and obstructive when there is so much at stake for our future, our continuing economic well-being, the security of our homeland, and the security and jobs of ordinary Americans who depend upon us to pass commonsense, reasonable legislation.

As a joint team, we are doing our part and we are getting some great help teaming with rank-and-file Democrats. It is too bad the liberal minority leader does not want to join her own colleagues who did the right thing in passing helpful and progressive legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of William H. Goetz, who, after 46 years of service to the City of Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, has announced his retirement from public service.

Bill Goetz' career began in 1964 when he began serving on the City Council of

South Fort Mitchell until that city merged with Fort Mitchell in 1967. He continued to serve as a council member for a combined total of 18 years, until 1981 when he was elected mayor.

William Goetz was mayor of Fort Mitchell from 1982 until April of 1993 when he was appointed city administrator and held that position for 12 years, until announcing his recent retirement.

Mr. Goetz has also served the city throughout his career as a member and an officer of numerous local and State organizations, including serving as president of the Municipal Government League of Northern Kentucky, president of the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission, chairman of the board of the Kentucky Municipal Risk Management Association, and president of the Kentucky League of Cities, a great record of public service.

Mr. Goetz has shown a devotion to employee relations and spearheaded efforts to improve employee benefits, which in turn allows the city to retain its seasoned employees, a great workforce with a long history of good service.

A devoted family man, Bill Goetz spends much of his free time with a large, extended family cheering on the Cincinnati Reds and the Cincinnati Bengals football team.

The retirement of William Goetz after over four and a half decades of public service will result in his being greatly missed by elected officials, employees, residents, longtime associates and friends of the city. He is a consummate professional who has always been a pleasure to work with, held a wealth of knowledge, demonstrated a will to help others and a will to continually serve the community. I am sure that that will continue long into the future.

Thank you, Bill, for your service.

Mr. Chairman, I speak not simply as a Member of Congress, but as a former enlisted soldier and military officer.

I find myself somewhat dismayed that we have to spend time here today debating an amendment that would tell our enemies when our forces are going to withdraw from Iraq. This amendment is tantamount to posting a billboard saying, ``We will be gone by 5 o'clock Friday. If you wait until 6 o'clock, you can perform a murderous rampage through this growing democracy and terrify and intimidate the people back into living under a despotic regime.''

I respect the gentlewoman's passionate declarations regarding tolerance, diversity, and the rights of women, all of which would be ruthlessly, violently, and murderously suppressed if we were to leave at this time, something I am sure she would not want to see happen.

Some might argue that this amendment does not set a timetable, but rather states that Congress just wants to see a plan. The amendment, some would argue, is innocuous. I cannot stress enough how damaging this amendment would be, if it passes, to our troops, to our national security, and also to the Iraqi democracy.

Our troops in the field look to us for strength and solid, confident, unwavering leadership. If this passes, they would instead see a government that does not possess the fortitude to hold the course and finish the job. If this passes, their families would see a Congress that cares more for timelines and wordy resolutions than it does for the safety of their loved ones.

We also need to understand how others will see this around the world. If this passes, the Iraqis, who every day put their lives on the line to form security forces and battle terrorists in their streets and in their neighborhoods, would see a military that is not committed to training them to defend themselves. They would see an America that broke its promise to walk with them to democracy and independence.

If this passes, the world would see a country that takes no pride in its role in establishing a free Iraq, one that confirms the lies of the terrorists that we are weak and lack the fortitude and resolve to finish this mission.

Are we going to let less than 1 percent of the Iraqi population dictate our course and the course of the Iraqi people? I say no. Our enemies would stand up if this passes and cheer the moment it is passed because they would know that we will desert the Iraqi people who have invested their blood to defeat.

Mr. Chairman, we will not abandon a people who have so willingly given of themselves for the dream that we can help them achieve. Mohandas Gandhi said, ``The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.'' The people have democracy in their hearts. They can feel it within their grasp. They can look up and see it shining near them. We just have to stand and give them a hand to reach for it.

It is all the more distressing to me that we would consider this amendment so close to Memorial Day, a day when we honor the courage and the valor of our veterans, especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. We can all sleep better at night because of the blood shed by ordinary heroes who believe their government supported them and believe they were doing the right thing.

I recently spent 3 days visiting with numerous units of the United States Special Operations Command. Their valor, their commitment to protecting our freedom is insulted by bringing forth this amendment so close to Memorial Day.

I ask my colleague to join me in opposing this amendment in honor of those who have gone before us and in honor of those whose names we do not yet know, but will learn as we read of their sacrifice.

Let our foes understand one thing. Our exit strategy from Iraq is simply this: winning the war on terror. We must hold firm to the course and be resolved in our determination to win this fight.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand with us today and reaffirm our commitment to our troops, to their families, to our country, to the Iraqis and to our enemies that we will not retreat in the face of this evil.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the inadequacy of funds appropriated for the construction and repair of our lock and dam system.

First, I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work on the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Their efficient and bipartisan work is commendable.

This bill is a significant step in the right direction. However, the funding levels to maintain our working waterways remain insufficient. Freight transportation on our Nation's waterways is essential to the health of our economy. In 2003 the total waterborne commerce in the United States accounted for more than 2.3 trillion short tons. This system is the fundamental backbone of our energy industry and waterways carry 20 percent of America's coal, enough to produce 10 percent of all electricity used in the United States annually.

Almost one-third of the total tonnage transported over water is petroleum and petro-chemical products.

A functioning waterway network is also essential to our farmers. Sixty percent of all U.S. grain exports travel our inland waterways, and their ability to use our waterways is an essential component for the price competitiveness for our farmers in the international market.

The waterway transportation industry is a cost-effective and environmentally friendly component of our inter-modal freight system. A single towboat can move the same amount of cargo as 180 rail cars or 1,440 trucks. One does not require an environmental science degree to understand the pollution impact benefit of numbers like that.

The lock and dam systems are the keys to the viability of our waterway network. The infrastructure on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers is well beyond its design life. This network is hindered by deterioration, unreliability, and inefficiency. Waterway transportation is paralyzed when locks fail or are closed.

Repeated congressional neglect of sufficient funding levels in the operations and maintenance, general investigations and construction accounts has resulted in exponential increases in unscheduled lock closures. Since 1991 we have experienced a 110 percent increase in closure hours. The closure of a single lock creates a ripple effect that affects the entire system. Over the last 2 years, closures on the Ohio River have cost the Nation's economy incalculable millions of dollars.

Last year the Corps of Engineers was forced to close the McAlpine Lock and Dam. During that 2-week period, traffic on the Ohio River was effectively halted. The closure was announced roughly 2 months ahead of time. In anticipation of the closure, a West Virginia aluminum company whose supply was dependent on the river network began laying-off employees.

The most recent closure of the Greenup Lock and Dam cost waterways operators $12 million in lost business. Utility companies incurred $15 million in costs to make last-minute alternate arrangements to keep power plants online. I assure my colleagues that the closure cost our economy significantly more than $27 million.

I am pleased that this appropriations bill provides full and efficient funding for the McAlpine Lock and Dam project in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not include any funding for the Greenup Lock and Dam. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized the Greenup Lock and Dam project. The Greenup Lock and Dam is approaching the same level of disrepair I described with respect to the McAlpine Lock and Dam.

73.7 million tons of commerce worth almost $9.6 billion transited the Greenup Lock in 2001. Sixty-two percent of that tonnage was coal. By 2010, the annual tonnage is expected to exceed 91 million tons.

The 2000 Interim Feasibility Report recommended that the Greenup Lock and Dam project be complete by 2008. Because this appropriations bill does not include any funds for the Greenup Lock and Dam, no work will be accomplished on that project for an entire year. Every year of insufficient funding results in increased risk of closures and makes the entire project more expensive.

Ethics. The principles of honor and morality. The accepted rules of conduct. The moral principles of an individual.

Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress recently passed its 100-day mark, and I would like to reflect on the progress we have made under the strong leadership of the Republican Party to create jobs, to strengthen the economy, support our troops, and to protect our borders. And we have done this with strong bipartisan support as wiser, calmer heads have prevailed on the other side of the aisle.

The energy bill, supported by 41 Democrats. This bill will create nearly half a million new jobs in the manufacturing, construction, agriculture and technology sectors by reducing our dependency on foreign oil while exploring domestic sources and alternative energy sources. This was opposed by the minority leader.

Class action reform, supported by 73 Democrats. This will unclog overused courts, end the harassment of local businesses by stopping predatory forum shopping by some trial attorneys and will protect consumers with a consumer class action bill of rights. Small businesses pay an average of $88 billion each year on lawsuits and this cost is simply passed on to consumers. This money could be much better spent growing businesses and creating jobs. This bill was opposed by the minority leader.

Permanent repeal of the death tax, supported by 42 Democrats. The death tax is the leading cause of dissolution for most small businesses. Seventy percent of businesses do not make it past the first generation because of death tax rates. According to one small business survey, more than 80 percent of small businesses spend $25,000 annually on attorney-consultant fees and life insurance premiums in an attempt to avoid the crushing blow of the death tax. Again, this money could be much better spent growing businesses and creating jobs. This was opposed by the minority leader.

The Border Security Act, supported by 42 Democrats. This will implement a much-needed national standard for driver's license requirements and strengthen our borders so that those who intend to do us harm find it harder to enter our country. This was opposed by the minority leader.

Thank goodness for the moderates in the Democratic Party who are willing to put aside partisan bickering and work together to get things done for America. The minority leader's continued opposition tactics more closely resemble the pirates of the South Seas who hijacked commerce and progress and accomplished absolutely nothing in the long run.

What a shame.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Villa Madonna Academy of Villa Hills, Kentucky, on its forthcoming centennial anniversary on May 14, 2005.

Villa Madonna Academy carries a long, distinguished reputation of preparing students to respect themselves and others, to have a sense of self-discipline, to accept personal responsibility for their attitudes and actions, and to dedicate themselves to academic excellence and lifelong learning.

Villa Madonna Academy has demonstrated its academic distinction by being the only greater Cincinnati-northern Kentucky area high school to receive designation, under two separate criteria, as a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence two consecutive years in 2002 and 2003.

Villa Madonna Academy's partnership with the nearby Benedictine Sisters of St. Walburg Monastery provides opportunities for area youth to participate in a variety of sports activities and be outstanding neighbors in our community.

Once again, I want to congratulate the students, teachers and alumni of the Villa Madonna Academy on its centennial anniversary and to thank them for being such fine individuals and stewards of our community.

Mr. Chairman, as a father with four daughters, the safety and well-being of young women are among my absolute priorities. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is not a bill that affects a minor's right to have an abortion. It is a bill that protects young women from being pressured into having an abortion. The legislation requires that abortion providers provide 24-hour notice to one of the minor's parents or legal guardians before the procedure is performed. Abortion is already taking one life. We have a duty to protect the lives of the young girls forced to have these procedures.

Kentucky is among the Commonwealths and States that have parental involvement laws for minors seeking an abortion. An overwhelming majority of Americans support these laws, and parents, unlike those taking a young girl over State lines for the procedures, have the girl's best interests at heart. The decision to end the life of an unborn child is not one that should be made by a frightened young girl forced into a clinic.

Too often the men transporting the girls are either abusive boyfriends or men who have committed rape and are trying to dispose of the evidence. These predators should not be given the opportunity to circumvent State law and circumvent a girl's parents.

The House has passed legislation similar to this in the past, and we find ourselves here again supporting a bill that will protect young women. Officials must obtain parental notification before dispensing aspirin to minors and before taking students on field trips. States require written parental consent before a minor can get a tattoo or body piercing. But our current laws allow a young girl to be taken across the State lines for an abortion without notifying her parents. This is despicable. It is dangerous. And it should be stopped.

I urge my colleagues to join me to pass the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act so that we can protect young girls and involve their parents or legal guardians in decisions of life or death.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to assume the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).