Floor Statements

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

I am pleased to join in support of my colleague from New York in her urging us to pass H.R. 3593, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, as the National Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office.

As our colleague from New York indicated, this is a posthumous recognition of the ultimate sacrifice for his country that finally can be recognized, even though he served his country in a clandestine role. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to again join my friend and colleague from Texas in honoring this brave man. Serving as many tours of duty in Vietnam was a rare event in that era than the tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was particularly noteworthy.

I'm pleased to urge my colleagues to join with Judge Poe and our other colleagues in support of H.R. 3477 in order to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 133 Hare Road in Crosby, Texas, as the Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post Office Building, and I urge its adoption.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2896, which would name the postal facility located at 269 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, after the late Judge Shirley A. Tolentino. This was a bill favored by our late colleague, Donald Payne of New Jersey, and it's an honor and privilege to carry that bill on the floor today.

Shirley Tolentino was born in Jersey City, served in the judicial system, and lived a life of great accomplishments. She graduated with a degree in Latin with honors from the College of St. Elizabeth. Judge Tolentino taught Latin and English before starting law school. As a student at Seton Hall University School of Law, Judge Tolentino was the only African American female in the graduating class of 1971.

She became a deputy attorney general in the State of New Jersey, where she remained until being appointed to the Jersey City Municipal Court in 1976, becoming the first female appointed to that position. Judge Tolentino received her master of laws degree in criminal justice from NYU Graduate School of Law in 1980 while continuing to serve in the municipal court. She later was elevated to the position of presiding judge of the municipal court of New Jersey, again as the first female to hold that position.

With all those great accomplishments, she viewed her appointment and time served on the Coleman Commission, which would later be called the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Minority Concerns, as her greatest accomplishment. During her time on the commission, she became chair of the subcommittee on juvenile justice.

As a member of the Jersey City Hudson County Urban League, the Hudson County Girl Scouts Board, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., and a host of other local organizations, she served in prominent roles and loved being part of her community and, obviously, served as a role model for future generations, especially among young women.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 2896 to honor the life of Judge Tolentino and to remember our distinguished late colleague, Donald Payne of New Jersey.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am pleased to join my colleagues, and especially my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), in support of this bill. And I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 1369, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the Warren Lindley Post Office.

I am now pleased to yield to my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging passage of H.R. 1369, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this month, as American families and businesses anxiously await Congress' action on the expiration of any number of tax cuts, I thought it would be a good idea to ask ourselves again that question: What would Ronald Reagan do? Let's query the Gipper. After all, for the past 3 years all we've heard from Republicans is the claim that President Obama taxes too much.

When the Tea Party started its lobbying efforts in 2009, their name ``tea'' actually was an acronym standing for ``taxed enough already.'' So just like the Republican Party, the Tea Party expressed an apoplectic furor about what they thought was happening to taxes.

But while blind conjecture and pithy slogans are useful in getting attention, they ultimately fail unless they're backed by facts. Thankfully, the nonpartisan Congress Budget Office recently came out with its comparison of the average Federal tax rates paid by American families over the past 31 years. I'm sure Republicans and the Tea Party were all as surprised as many of us to learn that since 1979 Americans paid the lowest average Federal rate in 2009 under President Obama. That's right. Thanks in large part to the Recovery Act's $243 billion in middle class tax cuts--which my friends on the other side of the aisle opposed to a person--the average Federal tax rate fell to a 31- year low.

The average Federal rate since 1979 is 21 percent--meaning that, on average over the past 31 years, Americans paid 21 percent of their yearly income to the Federal Government each April. The previous low for the past 31 years was 18 percent. But in 2009, President Obama's first year in office, the average Federal tax rate actually fell to 17.4 percent, the lowest since 1979 when Jimmy Carter was in the White House. That means a lower percentage of taxes paid than under Bill Clinton, lower taxes than under both of the two George Bushes, and, yes, a lower average Federal tax rate than under the Gipper, Ronald Reagan.

Throughout President Reagan's 8 years in office, the average Federal tax rate was 20.9 percent, never dropping below 20.2. In contrast, in his first year, the average rate under President Obama was 17.4. In other words, after taking into account all the tax breaks and tax loopholes--especially the Recovery Act's Making Work Pay tax cut-- Americans, in 2009, paid 2.8 percent less of their income to the Federal Government than they paid during Ronald Reagan's best year. Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, the other George Bush, and President Obama. By far, President Obama has the lowest tax rates.

Perhaps if the average Federal tax rate under President Obama was as

high as those during President Clinton's second term, then maybe Republicans would have a better argument. Of course, President Clinton's second term also saw significant job growth and expanding economy, and the only Federal budget surpluses since 1969--four in a row. But to complain about Federal deficits and then immediately call for cutting taxes on the highest income brackets--even lower than the current 31-year low under President Obama--shows significant hypocrisy or a lack of basic addition and subtraction skills.

So as today's Republicans try to spin a tax fairy tale, where the lowest Federal tax rate in 31 years under President Obama is somehow too high, while ignoring the higher rates through the eighties and nineties, perhaps it's time once again to ask: What would Ronald Reagan have done?

Republicans, even those who profess to idolize President Reagan, of course, won't ask because they don't want to hear the answer. Following the significant initial tax cuts in 1981, President Reagan subsequently signed into law a host of taxes to try to bring the budget back into balance. Five times he raised taxes in his 8 years.

Madam Speaker, as Congress debates the extension of the current tax burden, comprehensive tax reform, and overall budget deficits, I again feel compelled to ask my colleagues: What would Ronald Reagan do?

Boy, my friend from Virginia could not be more wrong.

What exactly are the House Republicans trying to accomplish with today's 31st repeal vote of health care? One of the first votes Republicans brought to the floor when they became the majority in January of 2011 was to repeal the health care insurance reform law in its entirety. That bill passed out of the House on a virtual party-line vote, so you'd think Republicans would move on to the real challenges facing our economy like unemployment and the expiration of individual and business tax cuts.

In the face of the Supreme Court ruling declaring important health insurance protections in the Affordable Care Act constitutional, House Republicans are not repealing that earlier vote but instead setting up a repeat of it. They have become so ideologically immovable that they can think of no more constructive solution than to simply replay this bit of political theater. Meanwhile, 56 percent of Americans say it's time to move on to the true pressing challenges facing our Nation, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. A quick review of those challenges shows that this Republican House majority has not even tried to address them.

Let's start with the very real threat of expiring tax cuts creating a drag on our economy. There are a number of already expired and expiring tax cuts, including the alternative minimum tax patch, which could affect 34 million Americans. Then there's the payroll tax cut affecting 160 million Americans and numerous businesses, including the Bush tax cuts, which expire later this year. All combined, the expiration of those tax cuts could add up to a $4,000 per household bill on Americans. So far, House Republicans haven't felt the urgency to hold a single vote to extend any of those tax cuts.

How about the Medicare doc fix? If Congress doesn't extend the sustainable growth rate patch, Medicare and TRICARE doctors will see more than a 27 percent cut in their reimbursements, causing many of them to stop seeing patients. Millions of seniors and military members and retirees could lose access to their doctors. But not a single vote has been proposed by the Republicans to stop that from happening.

Then there's the debt ceiling. Without action, the Nation will once again risk breaching its statutory limit, triggering a historic default. Last summer, we achieved a bipartisan agreement to raise that ceiling and lower the deficit at the same time, warding off the cataclysmic effects of default, but not before House Republicans pushed us to the brink, resulting in the first time ever a downgrading of U.S. credit. The American people don't want a repeat of that sad chapter in our history, and our economy certainly cannot afford it. Ronald Reagan knew the value of ensuring America fulfilled its commitments. He raised the debt ceiling 18 times with no conditionality.

What about a comprehensive jobs bill? After 27 straight months of private sector job growth, cleaning up the mess President Obama inherited, the base of U.S. job creation has begun to slow in the wake of instability in European markets. Before the July 4 holiday, we achieved a rare feat for this Congress in passing a bipartisan reauthorization of the transportation bill, giving a much-needed jolt to the construction sector. But we can and should do more to spur hiring in the alternative energy sector, manufacturing, health care, and more. But instead of focusing on jobs, which they claimed in the last election was their focus, Republicans are creating a sense of deja vu all over again on the floor by staging a repeat of the health care reform.

Lost in this political pandering is the fact that the Affordable Care Act is actually working. Seniors who fall in the prescription drug doughnut hole are saving an average of $651 this year alone. Almost 13 million Americans are eligible for rebates averaging $151 from their insurance companies, thanks to new requirements in the bill. Premiums for Medicare Advantage are down 7 percent for the first time ever and benefits are up and enrollment is up 10 percent. Medicare is on track to save $200 billion by 2016, pursuant to the act, without one benefit being cut--in fact, benefits improving.

Mr. Speaker, the House majority is selectively ignoring those improvements to justify this repeat of its repeal vote. With so much to do--with American businesses and families waiting for tax predictability, with the economy bracing for the impending fiscal cliff, with almost 4 million people still searching for employment-- House Republicans are still offering more of the same. And sadly, it's not enough. Americans need real solutions to real problems. Let's get on with them.

Madam Speaker, I have 1 minute, so I'll have to go fast. Here are the top 10 reforms the Republicans want to repeal with their death panels tomorrow:

Discounts on prescription drugs, saving seniors $600 a year; parents offering health care coverage to their children up to age 26; lower premiums as a result of the health care exchanges; protections from bankruptcy in the event of a catastrophic illness; free preventative screening and wellness visits every year; reforms strengthening Medicare Advantage, resulting in a 7 percent drop in premiums for the first time ever and a 10 percent increase in enrollment; $151 in average rebates this year alone from insurance companies to consumers all over the country; protections from having coverage rescinded arbitrarily by insurance bureaucrats; tax credits for small businesses to help defray the costs of offering coverage to their employees; and, finally, guaranteed medical coverage even if you, in America, discover you have a preexisting condition.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us not repeal these reforms with Republican death panels.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4155 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the sponsors of H.R. 4155, especially Mr. Denham and Mr. Walz, for their dedicated service to our Nation while in uniform and for their commitment to supporting our veterans here in Congress.

I deeply value and appreciate the sacrifices made by the men and women in our Armed Forces, and I'm proud to represent thousands of them who reside in the 11th District of Virginia, a district that takes military service very seriously and holds it in high esteem.

I believe that we here in Congress have a sacred duty, Mr. Speaker, to provide for their well-being. For that reason, I strongly support efforts to expedite the transition of our Nation's warriors to civilian life. We need to do all we can to help these dedicated veterans find gainful employment. It's a shameful fact that the men and women who volunteer to safeguard our country are having so much trouble finding steady, good-paying jobs. A double-digit unemployment rate for post-9/ 11 veterans--almost double the national average--is simply unacceptable.

Transitioning to civilian life is difficult under any circumstance; however, this hardship is compounded when veterans cannot easily translate their military skills into careers in the Federal or private sector workforce through no fault of their own.

In addition, there's the task of educating employers to better understand that so much of military training is readily transferrable to civilian job requirements in the private sector.

We need to do better for our veterans, and I believe H.R. 4155 is a strong step in that direction. It would require each agency with Federal licensing authority to treat relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training or certification requirements for Federal licenses. This will help our returning servicemembers get credit for their military training towards a license which they can use to get Federal or private sector jobs and reintegrate into civilian life.

The Federal Government, private sector employers, and our economy will benefit by being able to take full advantage of their talent, unique skills, and experience as veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has already passed an identical version of this noncontroversial, but important, bill by unanimous consent. I urge all Members to support this bill that will enable our Nation's veterans to get back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with that, let me just urge my colleagues, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to come together and support our veterans and to make opportunity more available. It is, as I said, a sacred duty, it seems to me, that those men and women who are willing to put on that uniform and serve their country ought to be treated with respect and dignity and a job when they come home, and this bill will go a long way to doing that.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the 112th Congress is on the verge of becoming the first in the history of the country to hold a sitting Cabinet member in contempt, cementing its legacy as the most partisan House of Representatives perhaps of all time. When they say it's not about politics, you can be sure it's about politics.

The majority's irresponsible and unprecedented contempt vote brings dishonor to this House, which has become so clouded in judgment, so besotted with rancor and partisanship, that it's incapable of addressing a fundamental separation of powers conflict in a serious and fair fashion.

In refusing to engage in good-faith negotiations with the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, the majority has exposed this contempt citation for what it really is: an extraordinarily shameful political witch hunt aimed at trashing an honorable man.

It is unacceptable that we are rushing to the floor this unprecedented contempt resolution. Yesterday, Ranking Member Cummings sent a letter to the Speaker highlighting 100 errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations of fact contained in the contempt citation itself, rushed out of our committee last week on a party-line vote.

Although some of the contempt citation's flaws are simply misleading, others are significant legal deficiencies and may contain factual errors that call into question the very validity of the contempt citation itself.

For example, on pages 4 and 5, the contempt citation charges that senior officials at the Department of Justice headquarters ``ultimately approved and authorized'' Operation Fast and Furious. However, the contempt citation fails to mention that the committee has uncovered no evidence that DOJ officials, including the Attorney General, ever approved or authorized gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious. In fact, the authorization originated at the ATF office in Phoenix, Arizona, not at DOJ headquarters in Washington.

On pages 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27, the contempt citation charges DOJ with not producing a series of documents that the chairman only recently acknowledged the Department is prohibited by law from providing due to the potential impact on ongoing prosecutions.

In fact, he had to amend his own subpoenas to delete documents in this very category. But his contempt citation has not caught up with his most recent version of his subpoena.

Clearly, the majority has not taken the necessary time to properly weigh this very serious charge. Regrettably, this deeply flawed and shoddy contempt citation is emblematic of the majority's reckless rush to judgment throughout this political prosecution.

I have been deeply troubled by the tone and tenor of some of the very hostile questioning and the utter and complete contempt and lack of respect given to the Attorney General of the United States.

When this chapter of congressional history is written, it will not be a brave, shining moment. It will be seen for what it is: a craven, crass, partisan move that brings dishonor to this body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Dulles Chapter 1241 on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. The Northern Virginia region is home to more than 160,000 federal employees and a large number of retirees who have chosen to stay in the region. Throughout their careers, these dedicated civil servants give their time and effort to serving their fellow Americans, and NARFE consistently has provided them with coordinated support.

NARFE is increasingly important in these challenging budgetary times when many proposals would seek to single out federal workers and retirees and make draconian cuts to federal retirements and health care. The federal government, regardless of the size one feels is appropriate, cannot function efficiently or effectively without the hard work and expertise of dedicated employees. Federal workers devote years of their lives in service to the nation; the government could not function without their expertise, and it is imperative that they are treated fairly. For the past 40 years, NARFE Chapter 1241 has ably advocated on behalf of the dedicated civil servants in the Northern Virginia region.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating NARFE Chapter 1241 for 40 years of service to our federal workers and to wish them continued success protecting the rights of current and future federal workers and retirees.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow we risk bringing dishonor to this House.

For Members who revere Congress as the legislative branch of government, the majority's irresponsible and unprecedented contempt vote is just another sad chapter in our recent institutional decline. I implore my colleagues to give careful consideration as to whether we truly want the 112th Congress to become the first in history to hold a sitting Cabinet member in contempt of Congress.

Do we really want our legacy to be establishing one of the most partisan House of Representatives of all time, so clouded in judgment, so besotted with rancor and partisanship, that we are incapable of addressing vital separation of powers conflicts in a serious and fair fashion?

Further negotiations with the Department of Justice and the Attorney General are clearly available if we want a solution. I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring honor and dignity to this House by opposing the nuclear option: a contempt citation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment underscores the point that we need to be doing more, not less, to combat the dangerous habit of distracted driving on our Nation's roadways.

Earlier this evening, we voted on a motion to instruct conferees on the highway bill to reject the Senate's bipartisan proposal to partner with the States on prevention strategies, and the bill before us now provides no additional funds to address what Transportation Secretary LaHood has identified as an epidemic in this country. Traffic accidents caused by distracted driving are on the rise in communities everywhere in this country.

In my home county, our police department in Fairfax County reported a 48 percent increase in the number of citations issued for distracted driving in the last year. A recent study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute points out 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near crashes have involved driver distraction. Nationally, the Department of Transportation reports that more than 416,000 people were injured in distracted driving accidents in 2010. Tragically, Mr. Chairman, 3,100 of those people were killed.

According to a recent AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety survey, 94 percent of respondents recognized the risks of talking, texting, or emailing while driving and said such activities are unacceptable. And 87 percent said they supported laws against reading, typing, or sending text messages while driving. Yet more than one-third of those same drivers reported they still read or send texts or email while driving. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that more than 100,000 drivers are texting and that more than 600,000 are using their cell phones at any given time on our Nation's roadways.

Sending or receiving texts diverts one's attention from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds. While that may not seem like a long time, at 55 miles per hour, it is the equivalent of driving the length of a football field without paying attention to the road. A report from the University of Utah goes so far as to say that using a cell phone to talk or text delays a driver's reaction time just as much as having a blood alcohol level of .08, the legal limit.

I congratulate the 39 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam for taking steps to ban text messaging for all drivers, but the force of these laws varies. In my home State of Virginia, for example, it is a secondary offense, so drivers cannot be pulled over or cited unless they're breaking some other law deemed more serious. That's why we need to beef up prevention efforts, particularly among younger drivers, Mr. Chairman.

I hosted a teen driving summit when I was chairman of Fairfax County a few years ago. Distracted driving is the number one killer of teen drivers in America. Alcohol-related accidents among teens has, thankfully, dropped. Teenage traffic fatalities have remained virtually unchanged, however, as a result of the growth of accidents caused by the distraction from texting or talking on the phone. What is shocking is that 35 percent of teens who talk or text while they're behind the wheel actually do not think they'll get hurt.

I hear my colleagues talk about their support for traffic safety and about efforts to discourage distracted driving, but I don't see any tangible actions to address this challenge in each of our communities.

In his blueprint for ending distracted driving, Secretary LaHood endorses efforts to work with the automakers to apply technology being marketed to block cells while one is in motion or to improve crash warning and driver monitoring systems to prevent accidents caused by distracted driving. The Secretary has also proposed partnering with States on tougher prevention efforts and public awareness campaigns.

Mr. Chairman, in today's mobile device-driven society, distracted driving is quickly becoming our greatest obstacle to ensuring safety on our Nation's roadways, and it will only get worse. I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment. It's a modest transfer of funds from an administrative account to increase distracted driving research and prevention efforts. This will save lives.

Recently, there was a tragic accident in Iowa of a young lady who was driving while texting, which caused an accident and a fatality. In my home county of Fairfax, when I was chairman, I remember having to talk to the grieving parents of a young woman who had been texting while driving and who wrapped herself around a tree and died a few short blocks from her home. Looking in the face of a parent and having to explain why that could have been prevented is something I hope none of my colleagues ever have to do. I plead with my colleagues on the other side to accept this amendment and to save teenage lives.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my good friend from Maryland's Motion to Instruct House conferees to bring up the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. In the 10 most congested cities in America--including the Washington DC region which both Mr. Hoyer and I represent--drivers spend more than 40 hours a year stuck in traffic. That's an entire work week lost to congestion, yet all the Republican majority has offered in response is more partisan gridlock.

Americans are waiting for road improvements, bridge repairs, and more transit options. The American economy is waiting for more robust job growth. The nation lost 28,000 construction jobs last month and more than 2 million construction jobs since the Great Recession began.

Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower knew investing in infrastructure would create jobs and spur the economy so he created the American interstate highway system. This March, the Senate passed a bipartisan transportation bill--with 22 Republicans on board--to alleviate gridlock on our streets and in the halls of Congress. But so far, House Republicans have refused to even bring it up for a vote, for fear that it might actually pass!

A robust transportation program such as the bipartisan Senate bill helps both American commuters, and the American economy, get moving again. If we are going to create jobs and ease commutes, the Republican majority must stop idling. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Hoyer's Motion to Instruct.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership has invested a staggering amount of time and effort into gutting our Nation's clean water and air protections. As of this month, this House has voted 247 times in support of anti-environmental bills, amendments, and riders, including 77 votes devoted to dismantling the Clean Air Act alone.

As we debate yet another bill that seeks to gut the public health and welfare protections provided by that act and as we witness Democratic attempts to protect public health get defeated time and again on party- line votes, one is tempted to cynically dismiss H.R. 4480 as the Republican leadership's latest offering to their good friends in Big Oil. However, this bill contains an interesting provision that gave me pause, frankly, since it seems to hint that disagreements over protecting public health, when setting national ambient air quality standards, may actually stem from fundamental philosophical differences between the two parties.

One provision in particular begs for clarification since it's not every day that Republicans starkly disagree with Justice Antonin Scalia in regard to statutory interpretation as they do in section 206 of this bill. As written, that section would amend section 109(b) of the Clean Air Act to require the administrator of the EPA to take feasibility and costs into consideration when prescribing air quality standards that are requisite to protect public health.

Now, I'm aware that the author of this provision believes that this language merely clarifies supposed ambiguity in the act, going so far as to assert during the May 17 markup:

The only reason costs are not being considered in setting

standards there today is because the Supreme Court said the

language was ambiguous.

Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully disagree with that interpretation since Justice Scalia's statutory interpretation of section 109(b) was anything but ambiguous.

To quote Justice Scalia's unanimous opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., in regard to potentially considering cost when setting ambient air quality standards to protect public health, he said:

The cost factor is both so indirectly related to public

health and so full of potential for canceling the conclusions

drawn from direct health effects, that it would have been

expressly mentioned in sections 108 and 109 had Congress

meant it to be considered.

Even more to the point, the very first sentence of Justice Scalia's opinion says:

Section 109(b) does not permit the administrator to

consider implementation costs in setting national ambient air

quality standards.

This would seem to put aside any ambiguity.

That brings us to my simple amendment. Since Justice Scalia's opinion was crystal clear that the costs cannot be considered when setting those standards to protect public health, I couldn't figure out why my Republican colleagues were so committed to forcing the administrator to take those very factors into account. But then it dawned on me that since the Clean Air Act actually never defines the term ``public health,'' perhaps there is some confusion concerning who or what comprises the public. After all, if one believes that corporations are people, then the term ``public health'' would obviously have a different meaning to that individual compared to my own or Justice Scalia's.

Thus, my simple amendment would clarify the term ``public health'' in the Clean Air Act only as it pertains to the health of people and not corporations or other nonliving entities, and it's a simple fix to clear any confusion and restate congressional intent. By adopting this amendment, Mr. Chairman, Congress can reaffirm the principle that corporations are not people and ensure the lack of definition for the term ``public health'' in the Clean Air Act does not cause any confusion, particularly for certain individuals who may be under the misguided impression that corporations are, indeed, people.

I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and Mr. Lewis, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of my colleague, Congressman John Lewis.

Before I begin, I'd like to invite my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to refer to their pocket Constitutions, specifically page 21. There they'll find the First Amendment, which reads, and I quote:

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the

right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the

government for a redress of grievances.

I may be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, but when we read the Constitution, read it aloud here on the floor at the start of this Congress, a bipartisan exercise in which I was privileged to participate, I don't recall there being an asterisk at the end of the First Amendment saying, except, of course, if your petition stands in the way of Big Oil. Yet, the language in this bill creates a brand new, $5,000 protest fee for any American citizen to challenge the granting of a drilling lease, right of way or permit.

I don't know about my colleagues, but that seems like we're abridging the freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of a grievance. Once again, the Republicans in the House are happy to rush by the rights of the public to benefit their big friends in Big Oil. This is a capricious tax, at best, on the peaceable right to protest an act of the government that someone believes might harm the environment.

Not surprisingly, the bill does not apply a similar protest fee on someone who might want to protest the denial of a drilling lease or permit. One wonders why? Could it be that would be a tax on industry?

Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Land Management objected to this fee in its testimony to the committee on this legislation, citing it as an inappropriate economic barrier to the public to seek judicial review or redress of an agency decision.

I agree with that statement, but I don't think it goes far enough. It doesn't fully capture the full ramifications of it. It would trample on the First Amendment rights of the public. So much for the other side's commitment to being strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reject this assault on the Constitution and the First Amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to how much time remains on this side.

I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Nancy Barbour on the occasion of her retirement on June 30th after 21 years at Dykema, where she was a founding member of its government relations practice. During her tenure at Dykema, she advocated for many worthy causes, including support for the city of Detroit and the University of Michigan Medical System, where her efforts resulted in the addition of both a new veterans' hospital and a new children's hospital. The Detroit Free Press, Crain's Business Week, and Detroit News have recognized Mrs. Barbour's many endeavors.

Prior to her private sector advocacy, Mrs. Barbour dedicated nearly twenty years to working on Capitol Hill, spanning both chambers. She worked for Senator Phil Hart from Michigan, Congressman Bob Traxler from Michigan, Congressman Jim O'Hara from Michigan, Congressman Herb Harris from Virginia, and Congressman Bill Ford from Michigan, who was Chairman of the Committee on

Education and Labor. Mrs. Barbour served for many years as Chairman Ford's Legislative Director. She worked on a host of issues during her congressional tenure, including a humanitarian initiative helping to relocate a number of Soviet Jews facing persecution in the USSR to the United States. Mrs. Barbour's mastery of congressional issues and the federal assisted her success in the private sector.

Having realized personal success in both the public and private sectors, Mrs. Barbour understands the importance of education, and tirelessly gives back to her community. For many years she has tutored adults in Fairfax County, Virginia, helping them earn a high school equivalency degree and further their own career opportunities and realize their personal potential. Despite her retirement, Mrs. Barbour will continue as a pillar of her community and continue to help those striving to help themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking Nancy Barbour for her decades of service to Congress and her community, and to congratulate her on her retirement and wish her well in all of her future endeavors.