Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, despite vastly overwhelming numbers, I rise to address the House, and I apparently represent the entire body on this side of the aisle.

I want to say this to my Democrat friends, and I understand the vote here and I understand the politics of minimum wage, but why $7.50 an hour, $7.15, whatever it is? Why not $8? Why not $9? It is an arbitrary number anyhow. Maybe $15, maybe $20 an hour. It is an arbitrary number. If we are command and control, central government planning anyhow, why is $7 an hour sufficient?

In 1980, 15 percent of the workers in America were on minimum wage. Today, it is 2.5 percent. Who are they? Fifty-two percent are teenagers. Thirty percent are part-timers. And 40 percent have never held a job before.

Many studies show that when the minimum wage increases, small businesses who will be most affected actually decrease the number of jobs, thus hurting those whom we are supposed to be helping.

I would say to you that the reason most jobs do not pay minimum wage anymore is because the economy has moved the central government planning of Congress and the thinking of 1938 which set the law in motion to begin with. With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding.

I find today a lot of questions, a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of half decent debate going on.

I wonder, first of all, why we didn't bring this bill through committee. Certainly if it is a good idea, it would have been something worth debating and perhaps some amendments. But under the new ``open rule'' Democrat Party, I understand we can bypass the committee and not have any hearings or amendments.

The next question is, why are so many people who were opposed to the Bush tax cut for the lower income going from 15 percent to 10 percent tax bracket, why are they now so compassionate to the poor?

And I have to ask, also, why are you stopping at $7 an hour? If it is good for the economy and good for the workers, as we keep hearing over and over again, why do we stop at $7 an hour, this arbitrary number? Nobody can make a living at $14,000 a year. Why not go to $8 an hour, $9 an hour, $10, $20 an hour? Heck, if it is good for the economy, let us go to $50 an hour. And if we had a committee hearing, maybe we could have some answers on that.

Question: If it is so good for the economy, why does the Congressional Budget Office rate it as a $5 to $7 billion unfunded mandate on our small businesses, which are the economic engines of the economy? How come the Hoover Institute estimates that it will actually get 20 percent of the minimum wage workers out of work because people will say you are not worth that much money? Those are questions that we don't have answers to.

Another question that I have is we keep hearing that the minimum wage hasn't been increased in 9 years, when, in fact, since 1997, 29 States have increased their minimum wages. We do not hear about that because I guess we are against States' rights in any form around here. That seems to be a taboo kind of thing.

But what is also interesting is that 85 percent of the people who make minimum wage are well above the poverty level. Why? Because 52 percent of the people on minimum wage are teenagers, 30 percent are part time, and 40 percent have never had a job before. In fact, if we want to take a real serious look at poverty, we need to look at the correlation between poverty and hours worked a week. The reality is so many people are working less than 40 hours a week.

The second point, very important, is marriage. If you want to get a lot of the children who are in poverty out of poverty right now, get the mom and dad to marry each other.

Now, that wasn't in the first 100-hour agenda. I understand. We are rolling out the moldy, oldie golden hits of Democrat thought. But let's get into poverty and let's have some real hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I want to say this legislation gets an ``A'' in politics and a ``D- minus'' in economics; an ``A'' is politics most people aren't going to notice that the very people who are pushing it are the ones who voted against the Bush tax cuts for the low-income bracket, reducing it from 15 percent to 10 percent.

It is going to be good politics because most people will overlook the fact that the majority of the Democrat Party are going to vote against affordable health care for the working poor.

It is good politics because most people won't notice that the Democrats didn't have a committee meeting which would have given them an opportunity to parade out all of these workers who they have been saying over and over again depend on Congress for their salary and wages because apparently they cannot earn more on their own, only Congress themselves can increase this.

It is going to be good politics for them because most people won't realize that, since 1997, in the last 9 years, that 29 States have increased the minimum wage, and that is a fact that keeps getting overlooked.

And it is going to be good politics because most folks know that union wages are going to be linked into this, and it is going to increase the wage salary for the union workers who support them so dearly.

But it is going to be bad economically. As I said, an ``A'' in politics and a ``D'' in economics because the reality is that most minimum-wage earners are part-time, and most are well above

the poverty level. Most are teenage workers: 52 percent under 25; 40 percent have never had a job before. It is an entry level job.

If the Democrat Party truly wanted to take on poverty, they would have to say, what is the relationship between marriage and the poverty level, and between hours worked and the poverty level. Because the truth of the matter is if people in poverty, if many of them would marry and many of them would work 40 hours a week, they would be out of poverty. It is not anything I claim to have the franchise on, the knowledge of, all of the information on, but it is an economic fact. I hope that we can have committee hearings on that and discuss that, because if we want to attack poverty, that is where we need to go.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to honor the memory of the late Kevin Brophy. Kevin was a remarkable young man who touched the lives of all those he met.

Kevin Brophy was a native of Melbourne, Australia, who graduated from Memorial Day School in Savannah, GA. In his time at Memorial, Kevin averaged 28.4 points, 7.2 rebounds, and 12.4 assists per game setting a single season school record of 424 points.

Kevin went on to attend the University of Georgia where, as a walk- on, to the 2005 Bulldogs men's basketball team he played in all 28 games of his freshman season and started in seven Southeastern Conference contests. Though he began his collegiate sports career as a walk-on, Kevin quickly earned an athletic scholarship before the start of his sophomore season.

As a member of the Georgia Bulldogs basketball program, Kevin scored a season high of 19 points against the Vanderbilt University Commodores, nine of those coming in the last nine minutes. Kevin's attitude, maturity, and work ethic were contagious, spreading to all those with whom he came in contact.

Tragically, Kevin's life ended July 20, 2006, near Greensboro, GA, just hours after he devoted his time to improving the basketball program at the Athens Boys and Girls Club. His death has left a community in mourning but his life has inspired us all.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise one premise that no one has talked about, and that is this blind belief in everything the 9/11 committee says, and apparently individual Members as well.

The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan group of good people, some who served in the House. They are intelligent people who have been involved in public policy, but I am not aware that they were top-notch CIA or FBI or intelligence community members. I don't know of them having risen up through the ranks of the intelligence circles or the antiterrorism circles that makes them absolutely experts on everything on what is now a 2\1/2\-year-old report.

I wanted to bring that up because I think it is important when you consider that when the 9/11 Commission came out, this Congress on a bipartisan basis implemented 39 out of the 41 recommendations. We did not implement all the recommendations, but we had hearings on them and they were bipartisan and there was a lot of discussion, unlike what we have here today. What we have here today is a recommendation, a recommendation not made by the 9/11 Commission but, from what I am hearing, one Member wandering around the Hall said, Yeah, this is a good idea. Now, that is hardly the way to make a major step in the way we approach intelligence in the House. It doesn't make sense at all.

This bill today has not had a hearing. The Rules Committee did not hear of any amendments that could or would be offered or debated. I think, frankly, the thing that is ironic, and I have got to say as I see over there many of my very good friends, many institutionalists, people who have great respect for the institution, you know that on intelligence we have generally been bipartisan here in the Capitol. Certainly there are times when intelligence like everything else devolves into partisanship, but generally speaking we have

conducted this body in the wake of 9/11 itself in a bipartisan manner, and yet today we don't have that. We do not have those amendments which people could come together on.

So I just wanted to raise that because, as I sit as an Appropriations Committee member on the Defense Subcommittee, and I sit there and I listen to so many people like Mr. Obey, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Young, the folks I would consider the sage folks in the back room who at the end of the day do the pragmatic thing and put the best interests of the Nation forward, in this particular case that has not been allowed to happen. So I find myself a little perplexed by this because it has not been thoroughly vetted, and I am going to vote ``no'' on it because of the process itself.

Now, there are a lot of other issues that are important, and it is important to me that the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the Homeland Security, of the Rules Committee, of the Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Judiciary Committee are all resoundingly against this.

Madam Speaker, I have in my hand a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which I have read and reviewed, and I submit for inclusion into the Record that has been written by them, and I think the points that they have raised are very, very important.

110th Congress

of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 9, 2007.

Dear Republican Colleague: Today the House is scheduled to

consider House Resolution 35, a resolution purporting to

enhance intelligence oversight authority. We are writing to

you to outline our strong concerns with the current version

of the resolution and to ask you to join us in opposing this

resolution.

As a response to the 9/11 Commission recommendation to

streamline intelligence oversight, Speaker Pelosi proposed

the select panel on Intelligence oversight within the

Appropriations Committee to consolidate intelligence

oversight. Unfortunately, we believe this proposal is wholly

inconsistent with any notion of a more streamlined and

rigorous intelligence oversight process. In fact, we believe

the proposal will make oversight more complex and less

effective.

The 9/11 Commission recommended creating a single committee

with both authorizing and appropriating authority. The House

of Representatives did not agree with this recommendation,

and instead worked to ensure proper oversight by creating a

new oversight subcommittee within the House Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence and by improving coordination and

cooperation between the authorization committees and the

House Appropriation Committee. The new proposal undermines

these efforts by adding a duplicative and seemingly powerless

panel to the process. Instead of consolidating our oversight

responsibilities, we will be diffusing them, making three

entities within the House for oversight of the intelligence

community instead of the current two.

It is also apparent that the oversight parameters and

responsibilities are not clearly defined. If this panel is

supposed to be conducting oversight, it is unclear whether

the panel will get into intelligence operations. We have

worked hard to limit the unauthorized dissemination of highly

classified and sensitive programs, and we are concerned about

the practical implementation of the panel.

Finally, if the proposed oversight panel is charged with

reviewing and studying the entire intelligence community, why

are the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security,

and Judiciary Committees not represented on the panel? The 9/

11 Commission specifically recommended members from the Armed

Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary Committees also

serve on the joint authorization appropriations committee.

The purpose of the recommendation is to ensure adequate input

and review by the appropriate authorization committees. If

the purpose of the panel is too afford more aggressive

oversight, why were these equities and jurisdictions

overlooked?

If this proposal had gone through the normal committee

process, which House Rules Ranking Member Dreier requested,

we would have had an opportunity to address these serious

concerns through regular order.

Given these serious concerns, we do not agree this would be

a responsible revision of the current intelligence oversight

structure. We respectfully request you join us in voting

``no'' on H. Res, 35.

Sincerely,

Rep. Jerry Lewis, Ranking Member, Appropriations

Committee; Rep. Duncan Hunter, Ranking Member, Armed

Services Committee; Rep. Peter King, Ranking Member,

Homeland Security Committee; Rep. David Dreier, Ranking

Member, Rules Committee; Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking

Member, Intelligence Committee; Rep. Ileana Ros-

Lehtinen, Ranking Member, Foreign Affairs Committee;

Rep. Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee.

But I have to say, this is just not the right step in terms of addressing the national security needs of our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here, and I am glad that the Democrats are interested in fiscal discipline. That is a good thing. It is a good bipartisan debate. But there are three flaws in the Democrat PAYGO approach that I think are very important.

Number one, this tax issue that just won't go away. You know, based on scoring and based on reality and based on fact, when Kennedy cut taxes, when Reagan cut taxes and when Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.

Now we all know that scoring in this town counts a tax cut as a spending increase. How silly in the face of economic reality over the past 40 years.

Maybe the Democrat Party could look at scoring and change that. I think that is something we were unable to do as the majority. It would be a good idea for you to pursue it. But you and I both know that revenues went up in 2005 14 percent, in 2006 11 percent, and it was because of the economic growth brought about by the 2003 Bush tax cuts. PAYGO ignores that. How silly. How disingenuous.

Number two, I want to talk about entitlement reform. The big money, while I think we do need earmark reform and have supported it, but the big money, as we know, are in entitlements: 53 percent of the budget.

The Democrats were getting a lot of good credit for what I would say is kind of a golden oldies agenda, bringing out no original ideas, minimum wage, stem cell and student loans. And I understand those are safe things. But it is kind of like starting out the World Series by bunting instead of trying to get on base with real serious hits.

The reason why I submit that criticism is there is nothing in your agenda about immigration reform, Social Security reform, Medicare reform, the heavy-lifting ideas of entitlement, and PAYGO completely ignores those as well.

Number three, the real world, where is the Senate on PAYGO? My friend from Florida may know, but isn't it possible that unless they are going to do PAYGO, it is a silly exercise. It is boilerplate. It looks good, but the truth is if the Senate is not on board, which they are not, we are wasting time.

Mr. Speaker, at one time the United States of America overwhelmingly was an agrarian country, but today only 2 percent of the population are farmers. Yet those 2 percent feed all 100 percent of us and a great portion of the rest of the world as well.

Now, when it comes to energy, however, we import 60 percent; yet America consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. We need, for the sake of national security, fuel independence. In 2004, we bought over $100 billion of oil from non-democratic countries, countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, countries that are not always with the United States on a lot of matters and particularly on their votes in the U.N.

When we do this, we are funding both sides in the war on terrorism. We need to move towards alternatives: biofuel, ethanol, hydrogen. These technologies are already out there; we just need to have a national commitment to have fuel independence.

I have proposed a bill, H.R. 4409, which is cosponsored by Mr. Engel of New York, that moves us in that direction in 20 years. I urge my colleagues to join us and take a good serious look at fuel independence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and contributions of Pete Wheeler, the Georgia Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, who is being honored this Veterans Day as Georgia's ``Veteran of the Century.'' Pete Wheeler is an incredible person and a true friend to all those who have served in our country's armed forces.

Pete Wheeler's dedication to public service and our veterans is deep- rooted. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1942 and served in the Army Infantry. He retired as a Brigadier General in the National Guard in 1978. After graduating from the University of Georgia, he began his career with the Georgia Department of Veterans Service In 1949, and has worked personally with the 11 U.S. Presidents and 11 Georgia Governors since then. In 1954, he was appointed Georgia Chairman, National Veterans Day Committee and he still serves in that capacity. He was appointed to the U.S. Veterans Advisory Commission by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. Upon his appointment in 1994, he served as chairman of the World War II Memorial Advisory Board for President Clinton and President George W. Bush.

A true and faithful friend to veterans, Pete Wheeler has been an advocate of their causes for more than half a century. On a national level he is looked upon among the State Directors and Commissioners as the ``Dean of Veterans.'' He has been instrumental in many innovative programs to benefit veterans and their families, including starting the first ever ``State Supermarket of Veterans Benefits'' in 1966, a one- stop service for veterans and their families to gather information regarding Federal and State benefits to which they might be entitled. During his tenure, established two State veteran's cemeteries and played an influential part in the establishment of the GA National Cemetery in Cherokee County, Georgia, and the Annual Service Officer School was established. This workshop brings together veterans benefit counselors from field offices as well as leadership from the State's veterans groups and national offices involved in veteran's issues. This has been an annual event for 47 years.

His awards include the Silver Helmet Award, presented by AMVETS; Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge George Washington Honor Medal; the American Legion Gold Honor Medal and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Silver Medal of Merit.

Veterans and all Georgians are fortunate to have Pete Wheeler working for them. He is a model of civic pride and community service. Pete Wheeler has made an immeasurable contribution to our State, and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, as my friend Mr. Engel from New York knows, gas prices are coming down. I am glad about it. A friend of mine, a son, actually filled up last weekend for $1.89 a gallon.

But Mr. Engel and I know that the pressure upon the gas supply brought about by new drivers in India and China and all over the world means increased demand with a very limited supply of oil. We have got to wean ourselves off of Middle East oil and foreign oil as much as possible.

Mr. Engel and I have introduced H.R. 4409, which moves us toward alternative fuels. Ethanol, hydrogen, biomass, technologies that are already out there. We just need to invest more money and accelerate our commitment towards fuel independence.

Imagine driving through a rural area, cornfields on both sides of you, with assurance that that is your next tank of gas. Would that not be great?

This is something that we can work on as Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Engel and I have put the bill forward. We are glad to have a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans on it. I hope we can get it to the floor for a vote because I think it is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor my friend, LTC Susan K. Riopel, a respected officer in the United States Army Reserve, as she retires after having distinguished herself by continuous meritorious performance during 23 years of dedicated service.

LTC Susan Riopel was selected and served as one of the prestigious Army Congressional Fellows from August 1998 until November 1999, handling a wide range of responsibilities such as preparing input for committee hearings and conference mark-ups and conducting research and analysis, recommending sponsorship of bills, drafting speeches, talking points and press releases. Upon completion of her assignment as an Army Congressional Fellow, LTC Susan Riopel continued as a Legislative Liaison, for the Army Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison as well as the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve Legislative Liaison.

LTC Susan Riopel has been an exemplary leader. Her efforts have brought a higher quality of life to the men and women in uniform who serve our country. She is, however, first and foremost, a loving and supportive wife to Frank, her husband, a caring and understanding mother to her children, Elizabeth and David.

Mr. President, I therefore honor LTC Susan Riopel today for her outstanding contributions to the United States Army Reserve as well as our Nation. She is a visionary and a leader and a mentor, a beloved wife, and mother, and I am proud to call her my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the Appling County, GA Recreation Department's 14 and Under Junior Boys All-Star team (Hunter Williams, Tate Carter, Joseph Livingston, Colby Griffin, Michael Norris, Todd Hagen, Kyle Hardwick, Ryne Powers, Tyler Avera, Zack Griffis, Ryan Taylor, Cale Turner, Scott Fariss, Kasey Kersey, Coach Jeff Williams, Coach Jay Powers) traveled to Fitzgerald, GA on July 12th to participate in the 2006 BGPA Junior Boys Class ``C'' State Tournament.

The 4-day tournament was a double elimination tournament. The first game, Appling had to play Union County from District 7. Appling jumped on them quickly and ``Run-ruled'' them in five innings, with a 9 to 0 final score. That moved Appling on to play Thursday against Adel-Cook County from District 3. Appling played the whole game behind until the bottom of the seventh inning, when it tied the game up and forced it into extra innings. In the eighth inning, Appling scored one run to end the game. That moved Appling on to play for the undefeated game against Bowdon County from District 4 on Friday morning.

Bowdon beat Appling in 2005 for the championship, but this time would be a different story. The game began with Appling scoring 1 run in the top of the first inning. Neither team scored in the second inning, and in the third inning, Appling scored 1 and held Bowdon scoreless. In the fourth inning, neither team scored, so after four innings the score was 2 to 0 in favor of Appling. In the top of the fifth inning, Appling scored three runs and when Bowdon got up to bat, they scored four runs, making the score 5 to 4. The sixth inning went scoreless, and then Bowdon scored 1 run in the seventh inning to tie the game. The Bowdon team had the bases loaded with no outs, but Appling County fought on and kept them from scoring another run. The game went into extra innings, and in the top of the eighth inning, Appling scored 3 runs. Bowdon then came in to bat in the bottom of the eighth and went scoreless--making Appling the State Champions! It was an enjoyable tournament and the Appling County Recreation Department is very proud of the team.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the end of Public Housing Week in the State of Georgia. I would like to commend those who work hard every day to ensure that our fellow Georgians have safe and affordable housing. The following proclamation was issued at the Capitol building in Atlanta, Georgia last week, and I would like to submit it for the Record.

Proclamation

The Federal Public Housing Program was initiated under the

U.S. Housing Act of 1937 as part of the Nation's New Deal

Initiative, and has provided housing for millions of

Americans since the outset of this program.

Georgia, being the first State in the Nation to construct

Public Housing for its citizens under the Federal Public

Housing Program, continues to be a leader of this industry

and recognized across the country for its excellence in

providing decent, safe, and affordable housing for Georgia's

citizens.

The Georgia Association of Housing and Redevelopment

Authorities and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development work in partnership to provide public housing for

over 110,000 families in the State of Georgia, as well as

local jobs, economic opportunity, family services, and

neighborhood revitalization for the majority of Georgia

cities through their local housing authorities.

Governor Sonny Perdue of the State of Georgia proclaims

September 19th through the 26th as Public Housing Week in

Georgia. I encourage all citizens to express their

appreciation for the commitment and the service of those in

the Public Housing Industry within the State of Georgia.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wanted to say that there have been a lot of steps we have taken since 9/11. Many of these steps have been taken against the Democrat leadership's will. I think it is sad that so soon after 9/11 there seemed to be so much partisan division, and yet there still was some bipartisan unity.

We were able to, for example, increase funding for first responders on homeland security. We were able to pass the PATRIOT Act. We were able to pass the REAL ID Act that revamps the requirements for State identification cards. We passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And we passed more border security, including physical barriers, more Border Patrol agents, and more state-of-the-art technology. We ended the catch-and-release program. Unfortunately, 164 Democrats voted against it. We passed the Safe Port Act, which enhances our port safety. We did the

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which set up a lot of intelligence-gathering information, and part of this was the NSA program on surveillance.

And I want to say this, that I don't want the Federal Government listening to any conversation that I might have or you may have or constituents may have. But if they are suspected terrorists, and they are calling to Baghdad, I kind of want Uncle Sam to know about that.

I was actually shocked to hear that on Monday Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrat Party, said that capturing Osama bin Laden would not make the world more safe. I was appalled that a Member of Congress would say such a thing. But I want you to know that that is a minority opinion. Most Democrats, most Republicans think capturing Osama bin Laden would be a good thing for the world's security and would, in fact, make the world safer. And I am glad that we have these intelligence surveillance programs so that we can close in on him.

I am also glad that we passed the BioShield program to enhance our defense against chemical and biological weapons. We have also passed an Emergency Communications Act that will help us communicate during times of disaster, and a Maritime Security Act.

All of these are done in reaction to 9/11, but also looking to prevent future attacks, and I think we are moving in the right direction. A lot of work has yet to be done, but we have got to stay the fight and we need to be unified.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an Associated Press article regarding events leading up to September 11, and a document entitled ``The Post-9/11 Facts.'

Timeline: Key Events Leading Up to Sept. 11

Chronology of some key events in U.S. relations with

Islamic groups and with Usama bin Laden before Sept. 11,

2001:

Feb. 26, 1993--Bomb explodes in garage under World Trade

Center, killing six and injuring more than 1,000. Group of

Islamic extremists later convicted.

Nov. 13, 1995--Seven people, including five Americans,

killed when two bombs explode at U.S.-Saudi military facility

in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Usama bin Laden blamed for attack.

Sept. 27, 1996--Taliban, suspected of giving refuge to bin

Laden, completes takeover of Kabul, Afghanistan.

June 25, 1996--Bin Laden followers detonate bomb at U.S.

military base near Ohahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American

soldiers and wounding hundreds of Americans and Saudi

Arabians.

Aug. 7, 1998--U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es

Salaam, Tanzania, bombed, killing more than 250 people,

including 12 Americans, and injuring 5,000. In retaliation,

United States launches airstrikes against suspected terrorist

camps in Sudan and Afghanistan.

Aug. 28, 1998--FBI accuses bin Laden of having declared

``jihad,'' or holy war, against United States. Complaint also

alleges bin Laden founded Al Qaeda that year to promote

Islamic fundamentalism and force non-Muslims out of Muslim

countries.

Nov. 4, 1998--Bin Laden charged with ordering embassy

bombings.

Oct. 12, 2000--Suicide bombers in Yemen attack U.S. Navy

destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Officials suspect bin

Laden involvement.

Jan. 15, 2001--U.N. imposes new economic sanctions against

Taliban for refusing to turn over bin Laden for trial.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to thank both the majority Member and the minority Member for letting me talk a little bit about Jekyll Island.

During the course of the bill, we were having an immigrations hearing in Cannon, and I came over here as quickly as I could; but I wanted to talk somewhat about the bill, which I understand the Resources Committee has accepted, and I certainly appreciate that.

A lot of people have done a lot of hard work on it, but I just wanted to say that the importance of this legislation, which is agreed to, goes back to

the history of Jekyll Island, which is a barrier island off the coast of Georgia.

In 1947, Jekyll was purchased by the State of Georgia. In 1950, the State legislature enacted a law that said 65 percent of the island would stay in its preserved and natural state and only 35 percent of it would be developed. The 35 percent of it was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, long before the CBRA law about flood insurance and the Coastal Barrier Resource Act.

The State has maintained that 35/65 percent split; and all the 35 percent is, in fact, built out. Yet, somewhere along the line, it got included in the CBRA law, which made it the case that residents could no longer get flood care, which was not the point of the law at all.

We found out about this in 2003, when Walter Alexander, a resident of Jekyll Island, had his duplex burned down. He was cleaning up the land and preparing to rebuild his structure when he found out he could not get Federal flood insurance, and that was because of a quirk that happened in 1990. And we have been working on this since 2003 trying to get this exemption from the flood insurance law so that the people on Jekyll Island could in fact go back to getting flood care the way they had it.

So this has been something we have been working on for a long time. A lot of people had been involved in it, and I certainly want to thank Chairman Pombo and Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest, and Edith Thompson, who is on the staff; and Harry Burroughs, who is the staff director for Mr. Gilchrest; and folks like Bill Donahue and Laura Bonds, who are with the Jekyll Island Authority back home. Also, Pat Wilson, with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and Commissioner Noel Holcomb, Becky Kelly and Susan Shipman; and the Fish and Wildlife folks and the residents and businesses on Jekyll Island.

We have all worked on this in a collaborative effort. There has not been any opposition on this. Democrats, Republicans, and environmentalists. I would say developers, but developers have not been at the table since all this has already been developed for now about 30 or 40 years.

But I just wanted to say this is a very good day for the folks on Jekyll Island, and I thank both of you for allowing me to speak up about this issue.

Before I get into specifics of my bill I want to thank everyone who has helped in the lengthy process to bring this bill to the floor.

Thank you to Chairmen Pombo and Gilchrest and their staff, specifically Edith Thompson (Gilchrest) and Harry Burroughs (Staff Director for Gilchrest subcommittee but Pombo person). Also Merritt Meyers and Rob Asbell from our office.

Thank you to the Jekyll Island Authority--the relentless work of Bill Donahue and Laura Bonds, the Governor's office with assistance from Pat Wilson, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Commissioner Noel Holcomb, Becky Kelly and Susan Shipman), the Fish and Wildlife Service and the residents and businesses on Jekyll Island.

History: 1947--Jekyll Island purchased by the State from the Jekyll Island Club; 1950--Georgia General Assembly enacted a law that assured 65 percent of the Island would be preserved and protected in its natural state and managed for future generations to enjoy while 35 percent be developed to render the Island as self-supporting.

The 35 percent of the island that could be developed largely was during the 1960s and early 1970s--long before the original CBRA.

The State, working through state laws has moved to aggressively create a balance among development, public access and education and conservation long before Jekyll Island was included in the CBRS and that balance is now in jeopardy as redevelopment is critical to the viability of the Island.

If anything, Jekyll Island should be the model for the rest of the U.S. to use for the coexistence of development and conservation and quite honestly the dependence of one on the other.

I was contacted by Jekyll Island resident, Walter Alexander in 2003 because his duplex burned down. As Mr. Alexander began cleaning up the land and planning for replacing the structure he found out that he could not obtain Federal Flood Insurance, the insurance he must have in order to get a mortgage--and private flood insurance was prohibitively expensive for him.

He contacted the Jekyll Island Authority and together they began researching and found out that Jekyll Island in its entirety was included as an Otherwise Protected Area within the CBRS in 1990. The situation became even more urgent when he saw that in his original lease if he did not rebuild within 2 years he could lose the land.

Almost immediately after the fire Mr. Alexander started receiving offers to purchase the lot lease from wealthy individuals that could build the house without having to take out a mortgage. He turned down these offers because he wanted to stay close to his family who all lived on the Island.

Mr. Alexander is a nurse, and does not have a salary that allows him to rebuild without a mortgage--he was finally forced to take drastic action and borrow money against the equity in his parent's home so he could begin construction--this greatly reduces their family security during retirement. He is using this money to rebuild a duplex that not only meets, but exceeds FEMA regulations for flooding.

This is but one example of what denying insurance for rebuilding a community developed in the 1960s does--this is not what CBRS original intent was.

Arguments: (1) Jekyll Island should not have been included in 1990 on the CBRS maps as an OPA because it was ``developed'' long before it was included in the system; (2) prior to the inclusion, the Governor and the Department of Natural Resources of Georgia objected to the inclusion of Jekyll Island in the System; (3) the inclusion of Jekyll Island runs counter to congressional intent as OPA's were to include only Undeveloped lands held for conservation; and (4) the inclusion of Jekyll Island runs counter to State intent as 35 percent of the island by Georgia law must be developed, and is necessary to be developed to render the Island self-supporting.

Need for Change: I strongly believe that if the 35 percent of the island that is developed is not removed from the CBRS the long term integrity of the system will be harmed.

If the original intent of the Act was to preserve undeveloped coastal barrier islands then I think leaving Jekyll Island in, in its entirety would set a bad precedence for the CBRS.

This legislation removes land from the Coastal Barrier Resources System, specifically from a unit that should not have been created in the first place since it was neither undeveloped nor held for conservation purposes.

The Fish and Wildlife Service supports my bill and the new map associated with it that removes 35 percent of Jekyll Island from CBRA.

Leaving the 35 percent of Jekyll which has long been developed in the CBRS would ultimately do two things: (1) the Island would turn into a run down shanty town with deteriorating houses and businesses. It would lose its allure to tourists across the world and would ultimately become a burden to the State since it would no longer be self- sustaining or (2) it would again become a playground for only the rich and famous who could afford the costly Lloyds of London flood insurance required to build, maintain, repair and update all structures on the island--and that is not fair to the hardworking tax-paying people who currently call Jekyll Island home or inexpensive vacation spot.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Price for his cosponsorship of this, and also, I wanted to acknowledge my friends Mr. Scott and Mr. Gingrey for their cosponsorship, but I also wanted to say, many thanks to my friend John Lewis, the lead sponsor of this.

When he asked me to cosponsor the resolution commemorating Spelman College for their 125th anniversary, it was an easy ``yes,'' Mr. Speaker, and it was easy because I had an employee who is a Spelman graduate. Her name is Karen Robenson Boggans. She is not working with me anymore and, indeed, has gone on to bigger and better things, but I hope that I helped her on the pathway to the top. She is doing great things.

When she was my legislative assistant, Karen handled many issues. She was smart, intelligent, capable, task-oriented, focused and got the job done, and only because she was moving out of town did she leave our office. In fact, when she moved back to Savannah, I was able to get her to come back to work for us for a short period of time, and then she got a bigger calling one more time.

But if she is an example, and she is, of a Spelman graduate, it is a great institution, and I know it to be a great institution.

As Mr. Lewis pointed out: in 1881, when Spelman was started, it was a school for African American women because there were not many choices. Now there are lots and lots of choices, and yet Spelman still continues to show lots of leadership. It is still a great choice for women to go to this school because they learn how to be competitive, and they learn business, and they learn how to write, and they learn the basics of getting the job done. They are all over the world today. They are in 39 different countries and 42 different States. It is international in scope.

The funding for historically black colleges and institutions since 1995, under the leadership, I believe, of J.C. Watts, and as much as anybody, but good bipartisan leadership has increased 118 percent. Spelman College is

an investment not just in historically black colleges and institutions but in America, because you are investing in your own people who will go on to become great leaders in our country.

So I am proud to stand as a cosponsor of this, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 918, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the United States Congress passed DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, and the idea behind that was that marriage would be recognized in this Nation as the union of one man and one woman. It was not the first time that the United States Congress had gotten involved in the definition of marriage. Indeed, Mr. Lungren had reminded us earlier today that the State of Utah and Arizona and I believe one other Western State, in order to join the Union, needed to define in their State constitution marriage as a union between one man and one woman in order to become States in the United States.

But unfortunately, since 1986, activist courts have eroded the intent of Congress, and so we come today on the House floor with H.J. Res. 88, which reads: ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''

The purpose of this is to say that no governmental entity, legislative, executive or judicial, shall be allowed to alter the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, and it also prevents Federal courts from construing the Constitution or a State constitution to change that definition as well.

This, indeed, is the desire of the American people at this point. A recent poll shows that 69 percent of Americans strongly agree that marriage should exist between one man and one woman. The State Constitution amendments on the States that have passed them, which now numbers 45, average by passing 71.5 percent. Forty-five States, Mr. Speaker, have enacted laws about this.

Why is this necessary, then, to come back to the floor if the States are handling it? The fact is that there are great and deliberate challenges to DOMA in the United States Constitution. We can go back to 1965. The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut discovered a constitutional right to contraceptive noted in marital privacy, and the Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 decided that the right to reproductive privacy was applied to abortion, wholly outside the context of a marriage.

In 1996, the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick refused to create a right of sexual privacy for same-sex couples, but then, in 2003, the Court reversed itself in the Lawrence v. Texas case. In the Lawrence case, the Court claimed not to have gone so far as to establish a right to same-sex marriage, but then the State of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court prominently used the Lawrence decision just a few months later to do exactly that.

That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. This is not, as we have been charged, political pandering. This is not a frivolous exercise. Indeed, I certainly think this Congress, under the leadership of the Speaker and under the leadership of the President of the United States, has worked hard to address the issues of the day. We have worked hard in the war on terrorism.

We have worked hard in the situation in the Middle East. Indeed, as the President attended the G-8, the number one topic right now is, of course, Lebanon and Israel.

We have worked hard on balancing the budget. This House recently passed the line-item veto. This House has passed earmark reform. The Appropriations Committee, which has passed 10 out of its 11 appropriations bills, has reduced spending $4 billion by cutting out 95 different programs. We are engaged in addressing the fuel situation. We have passed tax reform which has created 5.3 million jobs since 2003.

We are very involved in the issues of today, and I will say to you that marriage is certainly one of the top-tier issues that it is the right and the obligation of the United States Congress to address, and again, not a battle that we have chosen to have but one that has been thrown back to us by the courts.

That is why we are here today, and we will have this debate, and I look forward to hearing from my friend from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to my good friend from New York that 16 States have recently passed marriage protection amendments, and on an average they have passed by 71.5 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the primary author of H.J. Res. 88, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former attorney general of California, the distinguished Dan Lungren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that, in fact, under H.J. Res. 88, State legislatures can allow same-sex benefits in the unions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out to my friend from Missouri that in order to become States in the United States of America, Arizona and Utah had to change their own State constitutions to recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman in order to do away with polygamy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that if this amendment does, in fact, make marriage, well, discriminate, and the opponents want to make marriage more inclusive, then is it not also true that we should and will broaden the definition of marriage, so that as Mr. Forbes from Virginia pointed out it is not merely a matter of one same- sex couple.

But why are we tripping over the word ``couple''? Why can't marriage be three people or four people? Why can't it be a combination, if that is what we are talking about.

I want to point that out to my friends, that this doesn't just end with being one definition or the other if you don't want to go with this definition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the previous speaker, my friend, to watch one of the 527 ads that are being run against Mrs. Musgrave. If she wants to see hateful speech, and one of the most hideous hateful acts that I have witnessed on any Member of Congress, I would invite anybody who is talking about hate to watch the ads that are run against our colleague for sponsorship of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the gentleman from New York, I have one more speaker. Then we are ready to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I also will submit into the Record at this point some groups who want to go on the record as being in support of this.

Coalitions for America,

Washington, DC, July 17, 2006.

Dear Representative, I want you to know that I am in fu11

support of your efforts and appreciate your leadership role

in helping to defend traditional marriage by sponsoring House

Joint Resolution 88, a constitutional amendment to define

marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

As a conservative, amending the Constitution is not

something I or others should take lightly, but with the

continuous assault from the left on traditional marriage

``day in and day out'' it is an issue that must be addressed,

I believe, by amending the Constitution.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Weyrich,

National Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to close and I just want to split the time between Mr. Murphy and Mrs. Musgrave.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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