Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I support the Individual Indian Money Account Litigation Settlement. The settlement of this litigation represents a turning point for the Federal Government's trust relationship. There are three reasons I support this settlement.

First, it provides monetary compensation to more than 300,000 individual Indians for their historical trust accounting claims and their potential claims that prior U.S. Government officials mismanaged their trust assets.

Second, this settlement seeks to address the growing problem of ``fractionated'' land interests. This settlement allows individual Indians owning shares of fractionated land to voluntarily sell their land back to the federal government, in exchange for a cash payment. In turn tribal communities will have the opportunity to consolidate these fractionated interests and use the land for homes, schools, and economic development.

Third, this settlement addresses the future by establishing and providing education scholarships for Native Americans. Studies have shown that Native Americans represent less than one percent of all students enrolled in colleges. The Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund can help improve these statistics by providing much needed financial assistance to Native American students to defray the costs at post-secondary vocational schools and other institutions of higher learning.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 579 I was unavoidably delayed. Had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to put the Republican Party's current platform into some historical perspective.

It was 30 years ago that Ronald Reagan was elected on the same platform that the government really can't be the solution to any of our problems, that it is the problem. He also suggested that any President who submitted a budget that was not balanced should be impeached. Well, for 8 years he never submitted a balanced budget and tripled our deficit.

George H. W. Bush tried to correct the situation so the Gingrich Republicans contributed to his defeat.

Bill Clinton came in, balanced the budget, allowed tax rates to go up to the level they are set to return to finally in January, saw 23 million new jobs created, while he invested in our fiscal and human infrastructure. He had three successive budget surpluses and left with a $5.6 trillion projected surplus.

George Bush comes in running against the government, enacts two deep tax cuts, starts two wars, puts in a $900 billion Medicare part D prescription drug program, and leaves us with the worst fiscal crisis that this country has faced since the Great Depression.

So there is the historical perspective. The fact is those two tax cuts never should have been enacted in 2001 and 2003. They should be allowed to expire, and we ought to reinvest in the human and the fiscal infrastructure of this country if we want to create more and better jobs in this country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) as one of the largest associations dedicated to the training and development of professionals, recognizing them for their annual Employee Learning Week, held December 6 through the 10, 2010.

Established in 1943, ASTD has been a leader in the training and development field. In recent years, ASTD has widened the profession's focus, aligning learning with an individuals' performance and their organizations' results. In 1945, ASTD held their first annual conference and continues to be a leading voice in the field of workplace development 65 years later.

Members of ASTD come from more than 100 countries and connect locally in 130 U.S. chapters with 30 international partners. They work in thousands of organizations of all sizes, in government, as independent consultants, and as suppliers.

ASTD continues to help its members and the learning profession build a highly skilled workforce that is critical for organizations to grow and sustain a competitive advantage. To further these goals, ASTD has declared December 6 though December 10, 2010 as ``Employee Learning Week'' and designated time for organizations to recognize the strategic value of employee learning.

I applaud ASTD and its members for their dedication to developing the knowledge and skills of employees during Employee Learning Week. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting policies that commit to maintaining a highly skilled workforce.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) National Trademark Expo. In a time of ongoing challenges for the American and global economy, I want to join the USPTO in its efforts to recognize the vital role trademarks play in the economy. The 2008 and 2009 National Trademark Expos were very successful and well-attended by the trademark community and public at large. This year's two-day event will be held on Friday, October 15th, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and Saturday, October 16th, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The purpose of the Expo is to educate the public about the value and important role trademarks play in our society and the global marketplace.

Trademarks are words, names, symbols, sounds, or colors that identify and distinguish the goods and services of one party from those of others. The National Trademark Expo will display different types of trademarks such as sound marks and trademarks that identify shapes and configurations of products and will feature company booths, themed displays, costumed characters, and inflatables. Banners will feature information on century-old registered trademarks, the historical evolution and transformation of trademarks, and the history of people behind certain trademarks. The Expo will also feature children's workshops, story time and guided tours. Educational lectures for adults will include lectures on Intellectual Property for Small Businesses, ``Why Buy `Legit': About Counterfeit Goods,'' ``How to File a Trademark,'' ``Top Mistakes in Trademark Applications and How to Best Avoid Them,'' and ``Trademarks 101.'' A video made to instruct pro se applicants will play in the National Inventors Hall of Fame Museum throughout the Expo. Also, the Museum's current exhibit highlights important food trademarks throughout the years.

During the Trademark Expo, costumed trademarked characters will introduce themselves during the opening ceremony and make appearances throughout the Expo, joining the USPTO's own Trademark character, T. Markey. A new cast of characters, including Clifford the Big Red Dog', Lorax', GEICO's Gecko', Chick- Fil-A's' cow, The Berenstain Bears', Dippin' Dots', and a 5-Hour Energy' bottle character will join veteran Expo characters Pillsbury's Doughboy', Hershey's Kisses', Hershey's' milk chocolate bar, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups', Crayola' crayons' mascot Tip, Betty Boop', Dennis the Menace', Popeye', Olive Oyl', Curious George', and Sprout'. Large inflatable characters, including the Michelin' man, The Cat in the Hat', Green Giant', NFL' football players, collegiate mascots, and Chick-Fil-A's' cow will once again transform the USPTO's campus into a ``Trademark Theme Park''. Caterpillar' equipment and a NASCAR' show car for 5-Hour Energy' will also decorate the grounds. A story time featuring literary trademarked characters sponsored by Hooray for Books!, a local children's bookstore, will help tell the story of the prevalence of trademarks in our daily lives.

On average, people are exposed to 1,500 trademarks each day and more than 30,000 if they make a trip to the grocery store. In a time of globalization, counterfeit goods pose an increasing threat to American businesses. A display of counterfeit goods alongside authentic goods, as well as an anti-counterfeiting lecture, will highlight the damaging effects of counterfeit goods on the economy as well as the USPTO's anti-counterfeiting efforts. Counterfeit goods cost the United States billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs annually as well as undermining consumer confidence in brand integrity when purchasers encounter knock-off goods of inferior quality.

Some of America's leading large corporations, small businesses, governmental agencies, and non-profits will highlight the various types of trademarks and the benefits of Federal trademark registration. The exhibitors include CMG Worldwide Corporation; International Trademark Association, Inc. (INTA); U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA); National IPR Coordination Center, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Wells Fargo & Company; Innovation Ventures, LLC; American Intellectual Property Law Association, Inc. (AIPLA); Elevation Burger (Elevation Franchise Ventures, LLC); Idaho Potato Commission; Pepsom Group, Inc.; Dippin' Dots, Inc.; Caterpillar, Inc.; CFA Properties, Inc.; The Travelers Companies, Inc.; Hillerich & Bradsby Co. (Louisville Slugger); The Hershey Company; GED Testing Service; and

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Mr. John Werner Kluge, who recently passed away on September 7, 2010, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Kluge's lifetime of achievements included being a world-renowned businessman and philanthropist, as well as a key contributor to our national security during the Second World War.

Mr. Kluge created Metromedia in 1960, which was the Nation's first major independent broadcasting entity, a conglomerate that grew to include seven television stations, 14 radio stations, the Harlem Globetrotters, the Ice Capades, radio paging and mobile telephones. Although his success as a businessman supplied him with vast wealth, acknowledged as the wealthiest man in America in 1989 by Forbes Magazine, he believed some of his greatest achievements came from the benefits society gained from his wide-ranging donations.

Mr. Kluge gave a total of more than $63 million to the University of Virginia throughout his lifetime, which has allowed one of our Nation's most prestigious Universities to maintain itself in the top-tier of colleges nationwide. His donations to medical programs provided crucial aid to disabled and chronically ill children, while his involvement in prostate cancer research has led to groundbreaking advancements towards containing the disease once being detected. He also believed in the need for better end-of-life care, which led him and his wife, Tussi, to provide funding to establish professorships in the field at the University of Virginia. In 2000, his generosity even reached the Capitol through his $73 million donation to the Library of Congress, of which he will always be remembered by the Kluge Prize for the Study of Humanities.

But perhaps his most important contribution was one that he is least known for. Mr. Kluge enlisted in the United States Army in 1940. In 1942, during World War II, he was promoted to Captain and appointed as the senior officer at the top secret military intelligence post located in Fort Hunt Park, along the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The top secret post was known only by its mailing address, P.O. Box 1142. While there, Captain Kluge led the men and women at the post in reviewing top secret documents and performing interrogations of more than 4,000 important German prisoners of war. Through the efforts of his unit, our military was provided with crucial information that helped end World War II and give the United States an early advantage in the Cold War. Even more impressive were the tactics he used to obtain such information. Rather than physical torture, Captain Kluge honored the Geneva Convention by obtaining information from prisoners through earning their trust. It was a clear contrast from the approach we initially pursued with captured terrorists and suspected terrorists at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons. Through casual conversation, card games, and taking walks, he and his unit were able to extract vital information that led to the discovery of most of Germany's secret weapons programs that included research to develop the atomic bomb, the jet engine, and the V-2 rocket.

Madam Speaker, I wish to commend Mr. John W. Kluge on his lifelong accomplishments and contributions to society, as well as for the crucial service he provided our country with at a time of war. While he was a man of numerous successes, he was also a man of endless generosity. He refused to ask for recognition or acknowledgement for his numerous charitable donations, but instead preferred the

grins and smiles from those who knew him well. Mr. Kluge was not only an outstanding soldier and American, but most importantly an outstanding human being.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Tennessee; I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith); and, of course, Chairman Berman.

Mr. Speaker, the United States and Japan have a strong and critical alliance. It is based on shared interests and values and our common support for political and economic freedoms, human rights, and international law. Japan, for example, is second to none in supporting President Barack Obama's vision of a ``world without nuclear weapons,'' and advocating for nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Japan has also recently doubled its civilian aid to Afghanistan, helping in our mission there to a great and important extent.

But, Mr. Speaker, this resolution involves 214 cases involving more than 300 American children who have been abducted to Japan and/or wrongfully retained in Japan since 1994. These American children are in Japan because they were kidnapped by a parent with Japanese citizenship. Despite a shared concern within the international community, the Japanese Government has yet to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or create any other mechanism to resolve international child abductions.

Japan's existing family law system, which dates back to the 1600s, neither recognizes joint custody nor actively enforces parental access agreements that have been adjudicated by United States courts. Essentially, American parents must beg to see their abducted children and have no legal recourse if the taking parent decides to deny them access. That's wrong. In no case has the Japanese Government facilitated the return to a parent outside their country.

So the intent of this resolution is to bring the plight of these parents to the forefront of the public consciousness. It calls on the Japanese Government to ratify the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction so that Japan will commit to a process that will return abducted children to their custodial parent in the United States and elsewhere, where appropriate, or otherwise immediately at least allow access to their non-Japanese parent.

The Japanese Government doesn't consider it a crime and will not prosecute a Japanese citizen that abducts a

child and moves the child across national borders, which essentially makes Japan complicit in what many foreign governments consider to be a crime, including the United States Government, which considers it kidnapping.

Japan does, however, prosecute cases of foreign nationals who remove Japanese children from Japan, which violates any basic sense of fairness. So they apply a different law if somebody abducts a child from Japan than they apply if somebody abducts a child from the United States or from another foreign country and brings the child to Japan, where they have haven from the law. It is infuriating to learn, frankly, that Japanese officials have issued travel documents and passports to these abductors in defiance of previously established U.S. custody orders. In some cases, they have given false names to the children being kidnapped to Japan, issuing false passports so that they are directly complicit in these abductions.

Now, there are numerous heartbreaking abduction stories, and I am just going to mention a few because Mr. Smith went into several.

One case, though, in particular, which I want to underscore involves a case from my district in Virginia, which is right across the river from the Nation's Capital. It involves a Japanese mother who, for fear of what might happen to her child, has to request that her name not be used. Her husband, who is not Japanese, fled to Japan because he is a lawyer, and he knew that he would find safe haven from Virginia court orders in violation of U.S. law. So, here, he kidnapped a child from a Japanese mother, knowing that he could take the child to Japan and that he would find haven there from any prosecution under U.S. laws and not even have to allow access of the child to the mother.

It gets even worse.

Despite having no contact with her children, this woman has to continue to pay child support, and the address on the payment statement is the only connection she has with her children. That is wrong.

Mr. Smith mentioned the Braden case. Melissa Braden was secretly abducted from her home in 2006 by her mother and brought to Japan in violation of previous Los Angeles Superior Court orders, which gave both parents access to the child and prohibited international travel with the child by either parent. Yet the mother was able to take the child from the father in violation of court orders, and she is protected by the Japanese Government.

There is the case of Erika Toland, who was abducted in 2003 from Negishi United States Navy Family housing in Yokohama to Tokyo, Japan, by her now-deceased mother. So the mother is deceased, but she is being held by her Japanese maternal grandmother and is denied access by her father. So her father is living and wants to be with his child. The mother is deceased, and he can't even see the child because of the protection provided by the Japanese Government.

There is the case of Isaac and Rebecca Savoie. This was mentioned by Mr. Smith. They were abducted just last year by their mother in violation of a Tennessee State court order. You shouldn't be messing with Tennessee State courts. In violation of a Tennessee State court order of joint custody and Tennessee statutes, they were taken to Japan. Both children have been denied any communication by and access to their father. So the mother is holding them in Japan, and the father cannot have access to either child even though the court has ordered it.

There is one other case. Again, this is typical of so many other cases--more than 100. Lastly, the Eliases--one child aged 4, the other aged 2. They were abducted just about a year and a half ago, in December of 2008, from New Jersey. It was in violation of another court order prohibiting the removal of the children from the State of New Jersey. Yet they were taken out of the country. The children's father tries desperately to have contact with his children, but he is forbidden to have that contact. This father needs to be mentioned specifically.

Here is an Iraqi war veteran. He was shot twice in the service of our country. He was dragged from a vehicle that had been destroyed by a mine, and he returned home only to find an empty home and his children abducted. Right now, without this resolution's achieving its objective, he will have very little hope in ever seeing or hearing from his children again.

So, as tragic as these cases are, more are developing as we speak. According to this year's statistics provided by the U.S. Embassy in Japan, the number of cases of parental child abduction to Japan has doubled in the past 2 years and has more than quadrupled in the past 4 years. The problem of abduction isn't going away. It's only getting worse. These children who have been abducted to Japan have not only lost their previous precious connections with their parents, but they have been deprived of their full heritage, their families and culture.

American parents are calling on the U.S. Government to urgently intervene and to quickly find a diplomatic solution. They have no other voice in this convoluted process. That's what we are asking for. These parents are not going to give up.

I want to thank Chairman Berman and particularly two of his staff members, JJ Ong and Jessica Lee, for their tireless efforts; Mr. Smith and his staff; and my own staff--Tim Aiken, legislative director; Yasmine Taeb; and Shai Tamari. They have worked diligently with these parents. I thank them for their efforts.

I particularly thank the parents who have committed themselves, devoted themselves to reuniting with their children. Who would not do that? That is why this resolution is so important. I trust that it will be passed unanimously.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your mentioning Mr. Toland. He, for 2 years, has worked with our office day in and day out. He will not give up on his child, but he has made it clear we now are his only hope and that of more than 100 parents who are desperate to see their children. They have been denied. Thank you for particularly mentioning Mr. Toland.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to express our condolences at the loss of life of the 72 people who were executed in Tamaulipas, Mexico by a drug syndicate on August 25, 2010.

The United States and Mexico have a unique relationship that is vitally important to both countries and to the world.

The loss of life and the utter callousness of this act need to be on the forefront of public consciousness.

The proliferation of criminal gangs like the one responsible for this atrocious crime highlights the extreme insecurity faced by migrants.

This act only reiterates the importance of comprehensive immigration legislation on both sides of the border to place safety above all other concerns.

I ask for my colleagues' support of this resolution which calls on the governments of the United States, Mexico, and nations throughout Latin America to commit to greater collaboration on the management and reform of migration policies within and between countries, to reduce the loss of life and establish safe, legal, and orderly migration that respects and protects human rights; and work together to address the factors driving high rates of irregular migration that increasingly exposes migrants to exploitive and life-threatening conditions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Hunger Action Month and to honor the Arlington Food Assistance Center, which is located in my Congressional District.

Hunger Action Month was established to help inform individuals, communities, corporations and policy makers that hunger is a severe domestic issue and deserves our critical attention. The Arlington Food Assistance Center's sole mission is to feed the hungry. This important action allows their clients to make other necessary purchases, such as paying for rent and utilities, without having to sacrifice their health and nutritional needs.

Despite the fact that Arlington County is one of the wealthiest areas in the country, many of our local residents do not have enough to eat. The Arlington Food Assistance Center seeks to remedy this problem by distributing bread, vegetables, meat, milk, eggs, and other food items to those in Arlington who are in need. AFAC obtains surplus food at no cost from local bakeries, supermarkets, farmer's markets, food drives and private donors. Each week, families with one to three members receive one bag of food and families of four members or more receive two bags of food--amounts that are expected to supplement a week's meals.

I would like to commend the staff and volunteers of the Arlington Food Assistance Center who work hard to provide needy families in Arlington with groceries each week.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a courageous and inspirational peace educator and writer, Colman McCarthy.

For over nearly 30 years, I read his columns in the Washington Post constantly pushing for the nonviolent resolution of conflicts, focusing on human security rather than national security. He left the Op-Ed page of the Washington Post in 1997 but he is still sorely missed.

Colman is a man motivated by his focus on the underserved, the forgotten, and the poor. He is guided by a commitment to the justice and equality of all of God's children and the blessed natural environment that too often our modern society forgets.

He has stood up against senseless wars, echoing Dr. King's approaches to conflict and the tremendous devastation it causes from the lives lost, countless wounded, millions of families broken, refugees created, communities destroyed, and unfathomable sums of money wasted.

Colman continues to be a clarion voice against many kinds of violence, including violence and the inhumane treatment of animals.

Three decades ago, Colman was writing regularly about the mistreatment of animals. In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States published his writings in a book entitled: At Rest with the Animals. Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States had this to say: ``The book showcases the extraordinary breadth of Colman's examination of animal questions. As we revisit his assembled writings, we can see it was not uncommon for him to provide an original moral framing of issues we've now come to debate in society in a serious way.''

Some of the advances that we have made in recent years on these issues, from banning puppy mills to outlawing animal crush videos, have stood on the shoulders of Colman writings and advocacy.

We are blessed to have Colman McCarthy and his leadership pointing the way to a peaceful future. As a man of unquestioned integrity, he has taught thousands of youth about nonviolence in many of our local schools.

Madam Speaker, Colman deserves our praise and respect for his decades of service. He recently received the El-Hibri Peace Education Prize, established by Fuad and Nancy El-Hibri, which is given each year to an outstanding individual or organization who has demonstrated successful and innovative approaches to promoting peace and social justice globally.

I'm proud to honor Colman today and will continue giving voice to his message of peace and cooperation through my role as a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New Jersey for yielding me the time, as well as his friendship, as well as the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield). And I want to recognize Mr. Inslee for introducing this legislation.

We share a deep concern about the use of medications which are not being safely returned to drug stores because of regulatory difficulties. In many cases, you have to have a police officer there overseeing the return of the drugs.

This will get over those restrictions and allow a process to happen which is terribly important, because we should all know that drug abuse is not limited to street corner illegal drug purchases, that, in fact, the abuse of prescription drugs is a large part of America's drug problem, particularly among young people. One study has shown that, in the last decade, nonmedical use of prescription drugs increased by almost 100 percent; and among adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17, it increased by more than 200 percent.

Too many of our young people are raiding the family medicine cabinet to obtain prescription drugs like OxyContin, Ritalin, and Valium. And, of course, it doesn't just affect those individuals, and it's not harmless. It clearly is leading to an increase in criminal behavior.

We find that about 600,000 emergency department visits over a year involved the nonmedical use of prescription or over-the-counter drugs or dietary supplements. It's a substantial increase year after year. About one-third of the visits result in hospital admissions. In fact, 1,365 of those emergency visits have resulted in the death of the patient, oftentimes young people. And that's where we see the biggest problem--fatalities in children 13 to 19 years of age.

So this will allow local communities to create drug disposal programs. As Mr. Inslee and Mr. Whitfield had mentioned, it gives consumers a safe way to dispose of unneeded pharmaceuticals, including controlled substances. A number of the most responsible pharmacies have asked for this. The pharmacists say they want to be constructive in this process and prevent this illegal and oftentimes fatal use of prescription drugs on the part of young children.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It will save lives. It's the right thing to do.

I just want to mention one other thing that involves our Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. We are finding that one of the things that is leading to very serious problems with water quality is the fact that prescription medications are winding up in our water supply because our sewage treatment centers don't have the ability to screen them out, so they go right into the water supply that leads to drinking water. And we think that that is a source of some of the problems we find with endocrine-disrupting chemicals that block or mimic natural hormones. And we see that in a number of fish, particularly the fish in the Potomac River. This is one of the problems.

So we are addressing a number of issues with this legislation. I trust that it will be passed unanimously, and maybe even by the Senate, which would be phenomenal. So, Mr. Speaker, we thank all those who cosponsored this, and let's hope it becomes law very quickly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the week of September 5th through the 12th, 2010 to be designated as the National Suicide Prevention Week. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teens and young adults in the United States. Every 2 hours, a person under the age of 25 commits suicide, resulting in an estimated 12 youth suicides every day. CrisisLink, a nonprofit located in Arlington, Virginia, is a prime example of an organization dedicated to saving lives and preventing these tragedies. Located in my Northern Virginia eighth congressional district, CrisisLink gives vital support to people facing life crises, trauma and thoughts of suicide. They provide information, education and links to community resources throughout the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan region to those in need.

Mental health issues are a stark reality for many Americans, whether it may be themselves, a family member, friend, or coworker. Currently, more than 78,000 veterans of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have sought help for mental health related issues. Sadly, 120 veterans commit suicide every week. Nationally, suicide rates are highest among people older than 65; this age group makes up 12.5 percent of the population and accounts for 15.9 percent of all suicides. Although these are just a few examples, every community experiences the debilitating effects of suicide.

Since 1969, CrisisLink has provided invaluable, free and confidential crisis intervention and referral services to anyone who calls. CrisisLink has also played a vital role in educating the community on how to recognize the signs of depression and respond quickly to the signs that someone is in trouble. 2009 was a difficult year for many in our community. But CrisisLink has quickly been there to help every step of the way. I have known CrisisLink's work for many years and have seen both how they operate and the impact they have on our community. I know that they put their resources to good use. I commend CrisisLink for the 40 years of service to our community; answering more than a half- million crisis calls, responding to more than 25,000 potential suicides, providing more than a quarter million referrals, promoting mental wellness, educating people about depression and other mental illnesses, and reducing the stigma attached to mental illness.

My best to CrisisLink and good luck on another 40 years of commendable, vital service to those in need.

Mr. Speaker, history is instructive on almost every issue we face in this body. Today's issue is whether we should take action so that the wealthiest Americans don't have to pay an income tax rate of 39.6 percent.

So let's look back at when they were taxed at that rate during the Clinton administration. Well, what happened was exactly the opposite of what the Republican Party predicted would happen. In fact, people at that rate brought home more after-tax income than at any time in American history. Twenty-two million new jobs were created, and we had record budget surpluses. And in fact, at the end of this month we were projected to have paid off all of the debt, relieving our children and grandchildren of any of the debt that we would have otherwise burdened them with. Alan Greenspan was worried we didn't have enough debt floating out there.

But instead, when President Bush was elected, one of the very first things he did was to try to finance two wars with two deep tax cuts, none of it paid for and now we have $12 trillion of debt. Let's look at history and learn for it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources or ``CLEAR'' Act (H.R. 3534).

This measure will impose long overdue reforms in the way the federal government regulates oil and gas drilling operations off our coast.

Something the industry and their allies in Congress have long opposed.

The explosion of Deepwater Horizon and the uncontrolled flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico render this opposition moot.

The American public has witnessed an ecological and economic catastrophe the likes of which this country has never seen nor should ever have to see again.

It has seen a company in the interest of boosting profits cut corners and take shortcuts that resulted in the death of 11 workers, a Gulf community in dire economic straights and untold loss of marine and animal life.

It has seen a weak regulatory system rubber stamp drilling permits, approving most in less than twenty-four hours and never reading or realizing the response plans to a blowout were fiction.

How else could it accept plans to save walruses in the Louisiana bayous and Alabama beaches?

More than 300 million gallons of crude oil have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico before the wellhead was finally capped.

Even if the cap holds and relief wells secure and permanently plug the well, the region will still have to deal with the millions of gallons of oil spread throughout the Gulf and along hundreds of miles of shoreline as the peak hurricane season approaches.

It will take decades for the region to recover.

It was a disaster waiting to happen and one we may now finally have the tools to prevent from occurring again.

Reforms that were once thought impossible are now before this House today.

This bill revamps the oil and gas royalty collection program, repeals liability limits on economic damages, separates the apparent conflict of interest between the federal government's royalty collection, leasing and enforcement offices, imposes new procedures for use of chemical dispersants, and mandates that the oil and gas industry include a worst-case scenario for oil spill response plans.

But now some claim this bill is ``overreach,'' that it goes beyond what is needed to address the failures of the industry and the regulatory agency.

In addition to reform of our offshore oil and gas leasing program, this bill breathes new life into a commitment proposed by John F. Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson to take a share from a diminishing public resource, our offshore oil and gas reserves, and use the funds to conserve and protect natural resources onshore.

LWCF was a good idea then and remains a good and popular idea today.

Since its inception, millions of acres of land has been conserved and are in use today by the public. They are portions of our national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests and state and local parks and recreation areas.

They are responsible for saving endangered species from extinction, protecting fresh sources of drinking water for millions of Americans, and protecting valuable historic properties and landscapes from destruction.

Unfortunately, the federal commitment has fallen short of the goal.

In recent years, we have underfunded our commitment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Over the past ten years, its funding level has been erratic, $672 million in fiscal 2001 and $253 million in fiscal 2007, but never at its authorized level of $900 million.

This bill imposes a $2 per barrel fee on oil extracted from the public's waters to allow us to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and not add to the federal budget deficit.

It would then ensure that the program is funded at $900 million annually. The additional funds this legislation will release will:

1. Ensure that areas protected by Congress can be more effectively and efficiently managed. LWCF provides for inholdings with high biological, historical or recreational values. These lands are available for a limited time before they're developed. Sufficient LWCF funding ensures agencies can take advantage of these opportunities. Real estate prices are lower now, ensuring more land can be purchased with each dollar invested.

2. Improve management by reducing fire danger and through other means. It allows access to these areas to perform important wildlife habitat management and facilitate public recreation. Fire danger, public safety and other threats are reduced, and hunting, fishing, wildlife watching and other recreation is improved and protected.

3. Ensure public access and quality recreation that has a substantial economic impact. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that active outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports nearly 6.5 million jobs across the U.S., generates $49 billion in annual national tax revenue, and produces $289 billion annually in retail sales and services.

4. Ensure efficient management and cost savings. 80 percent of lands acquired with LWCF funds lie within the existing boundaries of federal parks, refuges, forests, or recreation areas. When land management agencies purchase inholdings, internal boundary line surveying is reduced, as well as right-of-way conflicts and special use permits. Agencies generally tend to avoid acquisitions with burdensome infrastructure improvements that require significant capital investments. An added parcel generally does not increase management presence; rather, management is usually just absorbed within existing stewardship costs.

A recent national bipartisan poll shows strong support for the continued use of oil and gas fees for land and water protection and for fully funding the LWCF at $900 million annually.

An overwhelming majority of voters--86 percent--support committing funds from offshore drilling fees to LWCF (up 5 percent from June 2009). (Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and FM3)

Many local communities are strong supporters of federal LWCF expenditures due to the economic benefits that accrue through recreational tourism and the additional visitation that occurs with improved public access and recreation opportunities.

LWCF protects places where people love to go, from famed national parks to historic sites, to local parks that ensure recreation. LWCF supports recreational access such as trailheads and river put-ins--that allow hunters, fishermen, mountain bikers, hikers and boaters to access America's recreation lands.

LWCF enjoys broad congressional support. LWCF has benefited every state and every congressional district. LWCF has enjoyed longstanding, widespread support not just among conservation champions but also among fiscal conservatives and many minority members. Over the past five years, letters urging the Appropriations Committee to provide

major increases to LWCF have been signed by a total of 36 Blue Dogs and 43 Republicans.

This is a way to fulfill the vision first stated by President Eisenhower and what our constituents still support today.

Support the CLEAR Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010.

This legislation, as it was drafted and brought to this floor, would exempt one firearm of any value or a combination of firearms not to exceed $1,500 from creditors' claims during bankruptcy proceedings. That's right--this bill would allow an unlimited exemption for a single firearm. Despite claims from supporters that this bill is intended to protect firearms used primarily for personal, family, or household use, there is absolutely no reference to this requirement in the bill.

This means someone could claim an exemption for an antique firearm worth tens of thousands of dollars. In essence, Congress is incentivizing individuals to game the system by purchasing an expensive firearm prior to filing for bankruptcy. While I understand language will be added to correct this glaring loophole, this just goes to show why this bill should have been vetted first by the Judiciary Committee.

In addition, supporters of this bill claim that it is a Second Amendment issue and that it will allow individuals going through bankruptcy to continue to protect their households. While I sympathize with those facing bankruptcy, the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. It is not intended to protect an individual's property from legitimate claims during bankruptcy anymore than the First Amendment protects an author's novels or other works during those same proceedings.

Finally, this bill was introduced 5 days ago and has a total of 21 cosponsors. Yet, here it is on the suspension calendar--a process that is supposed to be reserved for non-controversial legislation, particularly when that legislation has evaded the normal Committee process. By contrast, the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, a bill introduced 446 days ago and supported by 109 cosponsors, languishes in committee. Closing that loophole, which we know puts guns into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, is something worthy of this Chamber's attention. Instead, we are spending floor time on this.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed and unnecessary bill.