Floor Statements

I thank the very distinguished chairman of our subcommittee from Washington State who is also my good friend.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good bill. The Federal Land Management

Agency gets the resources they need to meet their stewardship responsibilities.

The EPA gets the resources they need for the first time in more than a decade to better protect the environment and our public health. It brings us closer to meeting our treaty obligations with America's first residents.

I am proud to say that this bill moves us from an emphasis on unsustainable resource extraction and towards conservation of those resources. Offshore royalty fees are reformed and the oil and gas industry will be reimbursing the Federal Government closer to the actual cost that the government bears in permitting drilling operations on the public's land.

Now, finally, on Indian reservations, we are taking the right steps after decades of neglect, equipping trained nurses and law enforcement with the tools that they need to end the epidemic of violence committed against Native American women.

I thank the chairman for his very good work.

This bill begins to address a backlog of needs. It responds to the current challenges we face. It deserves our unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, it's nice to see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle engaged in the health care issue. Unfortunately, it's in a negative manner again with no positive recommendations for us to move forward.

You know, this is what happened back in the 1990s when we tried health care reform; there was unanimous Republican opposition to that effort. And, of course, during the 8 years of the Bush administration, we had no effort to deal with a health care plan.

So now where do we stand? Well, back in the 1990s, the average family paid about $7,000 to $9,000 for a family policy; today, they're paying $12,000 to $14,000. We know that within another decade, if we don't do something today, they're going to be paying $29,000 to $36,000 for a family health policy. Now, that might be okay if we were healthier as a result, but out of 110 countries surveyed, we are 72nd. Seventy-one countries are healthier than we are.

Our health care system isn't working. It's too expensive, we're not getting what we're paying for, and it's got to change. Now!

Mr. Speaker, through their words and votes, the Republican Party has been urging the American people not to stand in the way of a Great Depression. They unanimously voted against the President's economic stimulus package. But let me quote the nonpartisan economist, Robert Samuelson, this week. He says: In early 2009, consumer and business spending was collapsing. The stimulus has helped stabilize the economy. It has saved jobs that otherwise would have been lost. And interest rates didn't rise.

Now, there's obviously work still to be done. The numbers show, though, that we averted an economic depression and put our economy on a path toward recovery. We know that that road to recovery is long, but it's clear that things are starting to turn around.

A million jobs have been created or saved by the Recovery Act; 250,000 education jobs; 30,000 jobs created or saved by businesses that received Federal contracts from just a small part of the Recovery Act; and 500,000 responsible homeowners have signed up for the foreclosure prevention program.

Mr. Speaker, this stimulus investment is working and it deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in support of House Resolution 672, which calls for the release of imprisoned bloggers and Internet freedom in Vietnam.

It is estimated that over 20 million Vietnamese use the Internet to organize around environmental issues, blogger freedom, labor rights, and anti-corruption. Yet, in 2008, the Government of Vietnam launched a new entity--the Administration Agency for Radio, Television and Electronics Information--to restrict Internet freedom, censor private blogs, and compel information technology companies to cooperate with authorities.

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations, UN, General Assembly. However, this move to censor the Internet by the Government of Vietnam is an extension of Article 88 of the Penal Code which criminalizes free speech. All these restrictions violate the above international covenant.

Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, Vietnam has asserted that it has no ``so-called `prisoners of conscience' ''; that no-one is arrested for criticizing the government, only for violating Vietnam's laws; that its national security laws ``conform to international law''; and ``there is no practice of torture or degrading treatment of law offenders and those under detention for investigative purposes.''

Vietnam--a member of the U.N. Security Council--has made a charade of its engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council. Vietnam rejected even the most benign recommendations based on the international covenants it has signed, such as allowing people to promote human rights or express their opinions. Despite Vietnam's denials that it arbitrarily arrests and imprisons peaceful government critics, human rights defenders, political bloggers, and independent church activists, the government has arrested scores more since May of this year.

Vietnam's ongoing arrests of peaceful dissidents and church activists--conducted even as the U.N. was evaluating its human rights record--shows its flagrant disregard for its international human rights obligations. Member states should deliver a clear message to Vietnam that it needs to uphold its international rights commitments.

This resolution provides us with a chance to rekindle our role as a human-rights advocate around the world. It can show Vietnamese citizens that we notice when their rights are restricted, when their freedom is limited, and when their voices are silenced. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution. We have a moral responsibility to provide the Vietnamese with the same kind of freedoms we value in this country. And we have a moral responsibility to protect those who value what our men and women die for--freedom of speech.

Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world, this legislation would not be necessary, but gosh sakes, only 5 percent of our national historic landmarks are in recognition of the accomplishments of more than half of our population. This is long overdue.

I want to particularly recognize the sponsor, Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney; Joan Wages, who was head of the National Women's History Museum idea for a number of years; Mazie Hirono; and of course, her very able assistant for our public buildings, Susan Brita. All of these folks, who happen to be women, have brought this about.

I want to underscore the fact that it simply authorizes the General Services Administration to convey a parcel of real property near the National Mall for the establishment of the National Women's History Museum. Fair market rates prevail, and the museum will be funded with private contributions. Since it is for women, about women and by women, they're going to achieve that contrary to some of the other things we've attempted. This is going to be a museum that all of the Nation's population is going to be very proud of. It's long overdue. Let's get it done.

Thanks to all who were involved in making it happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. In particular, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their leadership in negotiating this piece of legislation.

As others have attested, this bill will provide more than $600 billion for our troops, so that they will be ready to confront today's adversaries and prepared to prosecute tomorrow's conflicts, all while knowing that the U.S. public stands ready to support their needs at home and abroad.

Also included in the Defense Authorization are three provisions that will greatly benefit the federal employees that not only support the warfighter, but often serve alongside our men and women in uniform.

The first is known as the Federal Employee Retirement Service (FERS) Sick Leave provision. This piece will allow FERS-enrolled employees to use their accumulated, unexpended sick leave towards the computation of their annuities upon retirement. This provision puts FERS employees on par with those in the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, which includes employees who joined the civil service prior to 1984.

The second provision important to so many federal employees is known as the CSRS Part-Time Fix. It allows CSRS workers to

phase-down to part-time status at the end of their careers without reducing their final annuities and pensions. Today, under CSRS, part- time service occurring during the final years of federal service negatively impacts the high-three annuity calculation, leading to earlier full-time service being calculated as part-time. This flaw often pushes out the most experienced and knowledgeable federal employees just at the time when this nation needs their service and expertise.

The final federal employee provision contained in this bill is known as FERS Redeposit. This provision allows returning FERS employees, who earlier left federal service, to repay a deposit to the civil service trust fund, with interest, in order to be able to combine their past and new federal service for future annuity credit purposes. Like the other two federal employee provisions, the FERS Redeposit will help the federal government better recruit and retain the skilled men and women that are critically vital to our armed services.

Though I have championed these provisions in the past, I must take some time to personally thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman Towns, and Chairman Lynch for their tremendous efforts to ensure that these provisions survived conference. Without the effort of these esteemed Congressmen, hundreds of thousands of federal employees would not be the beneficiaries of such provisions.

Lastly, I strongly support the inclusion of The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in this legislation. This provision, which has passed Congress several times over the past few years, would extend federal hate crimes law to protect individuals targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. In addition to expanding the categories of hate crimes, it would allow the Justice Department to aid in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes at the local level through technical assistance and supplemental funding.

Hate crimes have a chilling effect beyond a particular victim, spreading fear of future attacks among the targeted group. Congress cannot prevent hate from motivating individuals to commit violence, but we can ensure that the proper laws and resources are available to prosecute these cases to the fullest extent of the law. Enactment of this legislation is a long overdue step in combating all forms of hate- based violence that impact communities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I once again thank Chairman Skelton for his leadership.

I thank my friend and colleague very much.

Madam Speaker, this resolution recognizes Dyke Marsh. It has been around for 5,000 to 7,000 years. It is a unique freshwater tidal marsh. But it also recognizes someone who may not have been around for 5,000 years, but has been around for 50 years, and that is our very distinguished colleague, John Dingell, who introduced the resolution 50 years ago to preserve Dyke Marsh as a habitat for wildlife and fish and the ecosystem in the Washington metropolitan area.

I want to note that my colleague in the United States Senate, Senator Jim Webb, last week introduced a companion piece, Senate Resolution 297, which also recognizes this significant milestone.

In 1959, this body passed legislation that designated Fairfax County's Dyke Marsh as a protected ecosystem for the purpose of promoting fish and wildlife development and preserving their natural habitat. Now, at the time, Dyke Marsh was being dredged for commercial purposes. They were going deeper and deeper to get gravel. They were ruining the ecosystem.

For those who live in the Washington metropolitan area or may be visiting the Washington metropolitan area, if you go down the George Washington Parkway toward Mount Vernon, right after the city of Alexandria, you will see Dyke Marsh. Belle Haven Marina is there.

Dyke Marsh is about 500 acres. It's preserved. It's a beautiful area. You can see bald eagles; you can see great blue herons. You can see snapping turtles; a whole lot of bullfrogs. There aren't a lot of places left in the Washington area where you can see this unless you go to the zoo.

But these creatures--the fish, the wildlife, and even the plants, some of which are rare, are in their natural habitat because of Chairman Dingell's efforts. He got together with John Saylor from Pennsylvania--my friend

Mr. Shuster knows him, as did Mr. Shuster's father--and the late Chairman Henry Reuss of Wisconsin. The three of them got together and they got this legislation through that stopped the dredging of Dyke Marsh, and it has been preserved to this day. Whether we can expand it and even restore it more to its natural habitat, I don't know. But I know because of this legislation we're at least going to be able to preserve what we have.

As the gentlelady suggested, it has over 6,500 species of plants and animals, some of which are threatened or endangered. It enhances water quality, stems shoreline erosion, and creates an aesthetic and recreational escape for people of all ages.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the significance of Dyke Marsh, in reaffirming our commitment generally to protecting our Nation's ecosystems, and in honoring three giants of the Congress--John Dingell, John Saylor, and Henry Reuss--whose leadership and commitment to environmental stewardship were instrumental in the Dyke Marsh's preservation.

I also want to recognize Ann Toohey, who has done the research and staff support on this. I want to express appreciation to my colleague, Congressman Gerry Connolly, whose district is just to the south of Dyke Marsh, but who was the Chair of the Fairfax County Board when Fairfax County made the especially important efforts to preserve Dyke Marsh.

Again, I urge passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, when President Obama and Senator McCain pledged to close our legal black hole known as Guantanamo Bay, they reaffirmed to the world that the United States is a Nation governed by the rule of law and defined by our embrace of universal human rights. Yet efforts to close this antithesis of the American justice system have stalled due to the administration's poor handling of the issue, not-in-my-backyard

politics, and the difficulty in finding suitable locations for the 223 detainees remaining at Guantanamo. But the broader facts have not changed.

It's in our national security interest to shut down Guantanamo, to close this ugly chapter in American foreign policy once and for all. By continuing to imprison people without charge, we violate the most basic principle of American justice known as habeas corpus, we undermine our international reputation, and we fuel terrorist recruitment and anti- American sentiment.

I hope our administration has learned from their early mistakes and will begin consulting with Congress on this issue. Keeping the legislative body in the dark on pertinent information related to the detainees and efforts to relocate them is a recipe for policy failure and risks the larger goal of keeping President Obama's promise to close this black hole of American injustice.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Sarita Brown upon receiving the 2009 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education. Ms. Brown is highly regarded for her hard work and dedication towards accelerating Latino success in higher education. For over two decades she has served as a shining example for students of Latino heritage.

Ms. Brown started her professional career at the University of Texas at Austin. There she built a national model to promote minority success in graduate education. In 1993, her endeavors carried her to Washington where she joined the Department of Education during the Clinton Administration. As Executive Director of the White House Initiative for Education Excellence for Hispanic Americans, she was tasked with the goal of implementing effective strategies to raise academic achievement and opportunities for low-income and minority students nationwide.

After her time in the administration, Ms. Brown applied her talents and experience to the nonprofit sector, serving as a leader among her colleagues and in her community. Ms. Brown is the co-founder and current President of Excelencia in Education, a not-for-profit organization working to promote Latino educational success in the classroom by linking research, policy, and effective practices in public policy.

Ms. Brown currently sits on the Board of Directors for ACT Inc., the National College Access Network (NCAN) and on advisory boards for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund and the Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. In January 2009, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine bestowed the honor of appointing her to the Board of Visitors for Old Dominion University.

In addition to being an expert on education, Ms. Brown is also an outstanding public speaker. Each year, she travels around the country advocating for the issues she has spent her career championing: promoting access and support for Latinos to receive a higher education.

On behalf of the citizens of Virginia's 8th Congressional District, I congratulate and applaud Ms. Brown for her life's work. She is most deserving of the 2009 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education. May it serve to bolster her on to even greater achievements in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing one of the national capital area's most unique and cherished wetland and wildlife preserves and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the legislation that was enacted to ensure its survival.

In 1959, the U.S. Congress passed legislation designating Fairfax County's Dyke Marsh as a protected ecosystem, for the purpose of promoting fish and wildlife development and preserving their natural habitat. Until that time, the Dyke Marsh, which is the largest remaining freshwater tidal marsh along the Potomac

River shoreline in this area, was in danger of disappearing as a result of commercial dredging and dumping operations.

One of the key driving forces behind this legislation was our very own Honorable John Dingell of Michigan. His leadership, determination, and dedication to conservation and habitat preservation were essential to ensuring that the Dyke Marsh was not destroyed at the expense of further dredging and filling activities. Representative Dingell, along with the late Honorable John P. Saylor of Pennsylvania and the late Honorable Henry S. Reuss of Wisconsin, are to be commended on their efforts in championing this legislation 50 years ago, and one purpose of this resolution is to do just that.

The Dyke Marsh was formed over 5,000 years ago and today provides a delicate, yet critical, habitat for a diverse array of more than 6,500 species of plants and animals, including some that are threatened or endangered. Thanks to this insightful legislation and continued restoration efforts since that time, the value of Dyke Marsh today extends beyond its role as a preserve and protected ecosystem; it provides natural flood control, stemming of shoreline erosion, water quality enhancement, and aesthetic and recreational enjoyment for people of all ages.

Please join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of this legislation, in recognizing the importance and significance of the local treasure that the legislation protects, in reaffirming our commitment to protecting our precious threatened wetlands, and in honoring three individuals whose leadership and commitment to environmental stewardship were instrumental in the Dyke Marsh's preservation.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his conscientious scrutiny, particularly of the appropriations process. I trust perhaps some day he will look at the tax process, the Tax Code, which many of your colleagues are very much aware, has far more earmarks of greater amount. But in deference to the gentleman's concern, again, I would underscore the fact that in this appropriations bill, we make clear, in legislation, that when there is an earmark awarded to a for-profit entity, it shall be awarded under full and open competition.

Now, that's legislative language. It's not intent or report language. It's the law. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman has raised this earmark because otherwise no attention would be given to it since it represents about \1/1000\ of 1 percent of the entire bill, a very small amount, $1.5 million.

Normally it would go without notice. But fortunately, the gentleman has raised it, so it gives me an opportunity to explain what it does. And it is quite true that Mr. Alan Friedman's firm, who is a terrific person, CEO, and scientist, was represented by PMA, which, in fact, is located in my Congressional district. And I'm proud to have their support, frankly, because they too were conscientious in making sure that

their earmarks were fully investigated, vetted, and competitively bid. And, in fact, for the last three straight years, this system was competitively bid and won.

What this system is is called the SWAT system. It is very strongly supported by our military because it saves lives. What it does is to enable people, special operations primarily, and intelligence assets, that are in denied territory, and I don't need to go into detail any further than that, to find out exactly where gunshots are coming from, how far away, and how many snipers there are. And it's worked exceptionally well.

What Mr. Friedman does with this small amount of money is to address one problem with this system, which is that it's bulky. It's very visible. It has radars, and so it's too easily detected by the enemy so, to some extent, our people can be an easier target as a result. What this does is to make this system virtually invisible. And for $1.5 million it's going to save hundreds of lives in our expectation; that's why we are more than confident that when it is competitively bid, which is required by this legislation, it will win this bid.

If the gentleman was actually to look at this system, he, even, would vote to include the money in this bill to ensure this system is available for our military in some of the roughest, most dangerous terrain, so as to save their lives.

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

May I inquire how much time I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, again, in case it wasn't fully understood--this may resolve the gentleman's concern.

In the legislation, it says, again, that all earmarks, when awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under full and open competition.

I can't stress that enough.

Now, to address the gentleman's concern, first of all, I've never made a press announcement about this. In fact, truth be known, I haven't talked to Mr. Friedman for probably a year, and I certainly didn't even let him know that this earmark was in. It was in because we checked with military personnel, vetted it, and found that this was a system that was a substantial improvement over what the military is currently using, which is called the SMART System. This is the EARS System. These are acronyms. This, as I explained, will be a much safer, less visible system that will protect lives.

Now, Mr. Friedman is no longer represented by PMA, and I haven't had contact with him. The fact is, at least in quite some time, this has been in here because of the merits of the project. It's only $1.5 million, but it is highly meritorious. That's why it is in.

I grant you I know about it because it takes place, the work is done, in my congressional district. It also represents jobs, but they're not simply jobs for the sake of keeping people employed; they're jobs to protect our military and civilian personnel in the most dangerous terrain and in the most dangerous places on the planet. That's what this does for $1.5 million.

Now, again, I have enormous respect for the people in the Pentagon, but they don't always move with blazing speed when they are making a change from one system to another. Oftentimes, you go with the status quo. Even though there are deficiencies, it is the easiest thing. What this does and the reason we put many of these earmarks in is that it adds a new level of technology to do a better job of accomplishing its underlying purpose.

With that, I again thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and salute Ms. Leah Gansler, a very special person in the Washington metropolitan region, recognized as a Washingtonian of the Year for her leadership and commitment to helping others, especially disadvantaged children. We are graced by her commitments and accomplishments which have helped so many.

Ms. Gansler launched a nonprofit, CharityWorks, in 1999, after volunteer work showed her the great need in this area among children and families. Leah brought together a team of dedicated friends and community leaders to create this nonprofit and local philanthropic organization. Her vision has been to transform the lives of families and children in the Washington metropolitan area, to try to break the cycle of poverty, to enhance local educational programs, and to enable families to overcome critical health issues, through the philanthropy of the CharityWorks organization. Her plan was a terrific success: CharityWorks' first $375,000 went to Habitat for Humanity for 20 plots of land and one house, which Gansler's members built. When President Carter learned of the partnership between Habitat for Humanity and CharityWorks, he praised Leah's efforts as ``unique in Habitat's history and a sample for other communities.'' Since 1999, Leah has spearheaded CharityWorks' partnerships that have made an extraordinary impact in our community by distributing a net of more than $10,000,000.

Wanting to include friends but not stay with the same charity every year, Leah devised two networks: one of 125 volunteers, who would screen charities and work with those chosen, and one of 40 CEOs and others who could give and raise money and would choose the recipient groups. This unique combination of efforts has led to signal accomplishments that have changed and transformed many lives and enriched our greater community. Among some of her greatest accomplishments are: creating 24 college scholarships, opening and expanding literacy programs, supporting after school child literacy programs, and building the Fisher House at the Veteran's Medical Center here in the nation's capital.

Appalling statistics convinced Leah that education is the key to breaking the cycle of dependency on welfare, so CharityWorks partnered with The Orphan Foundation of America to change the lives of twenty- four local foster teens by sending them to college. That same commitment to disadvantaged children led Leah to open and expand child literacy programs in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Through her personal efforts, hard work, and generosity, Everybody Wins, the largest grassroots literacy and mentoring program, serving 3,600 children was awarded $450,000 by CharityWorks in 2002.

Ms. Gansler also supported after-school and summer programs of The Fishing School in two of the most crime-ridden, depressed neighborhoods of Northeast D.C. Leah's tireless fundraising allowed CharityWorks to raise over $650,000, providing 120 at-risk elementary school children a safe harbor from violence, addiction and abuse. Similarly, her efforts were key in 2004 to CharityWorks' partner, See Forever, opening a second campus of the Maya Angelou Public Charter School for 150 teens. Leah was the leading light to raise $700,000 for the school, providing what The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer called ``their last shot at success.'' Because of Leah's dedication, CharityWorks was also able to grant Heads Up more than $750,000 for after-school and summer programs in some of Washington, D.C.'s most under-resourced neighborhoods. More than 900 at-risk children attend enrichment programs in 10 local schools. Perceiving the need for the Center City Consortium to expand its program, Leah, thru CharityWorks, was able to support 2,400 at-risk children so that they could achieve significant academic gains.

Through the generosity of all whose lives Leah has touched, CharityWorks last year was successful in raising $2 million to construct the 50th Fisher House on the grounds of the Veteran's Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Fisher House provides a comfort home for families of patients receiving medical care at major military and veteran medical centers.

This year Leah is celebrating 10 years of CharityWorks and partnering with Friendship Public Charter School. They are joining hands to design and build Early Childhood Centers of Excellence at the school and to support students enrolled in Friendship's award winning program.

Madam Speaker, we are fortunate and graced to have a person of such vision and leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Monday, August 3, as Telework Day in Virginia and applaud Governor Tim Kaine on this initiative.

On this day, thousands of Virginians will perform a full day's work from their houses rather than their places of work. This practice empowers workers who feel that they can fulfill their obligations to their employer equally well from home as in a brick and mortar office.

My colleagues, teleworking provides enormous benefits to employers and employees alike, as well as positive social and economic impacts. Teleworking, a practice which dates to the 1960s and then was dramatically expanded in the '90s, thanks to a host of networking innovations, can save employers premises costs and office overhead fees.

If all eligible Federal employees teleworked 2 days per week, the Federal Government could realize $3.3 billion in savings in commuting costs annually and eliminate the emission of 2.7 million tons of pollutants each year. Furthermore, it would provide an easy and necessary means of operational continuity should the Nation's Capital be the target of another horrific terror attack.

Teleworking can also increase productivity, typically 10 percent to 40 percent per person in large programs, by eliminating the often distressing and frustrating commute to and from work. For example, it eliminates commuting costs for employees because they do not have to pay for gas or public transportation. Given that the average round trip commute is 50 miles and commuters spend an average of 264 hours per year commuting (66 minutes per day), Americans would be relieved of the burden of spending so much time on the road that could be better spent with their families.

Through this practice, employees are allowed the freedom of working at their optimal times; some might be more productive in the morning while others might be more productive late at night. Telework allows the workers to get into a personal daily rhythm and work when they please, thus maximizing individual liberty and occupational productivity.

At this time, States and localities all around the Nation are grappling with ways in which congestion on the roadways can be reduced. We could facilitate greater capacity for mass transportation--but that requires heavy infrastructure investment and the vision to plan long- term. We could also build more roadways--but that would simply invite more cars and more traffic, while doing nothing to improve the quality of life for millions of hardworking Americans.

Those options taken together do indeed form a necessary component of traffic mitigation, but they take both time and money. Teleworking is simple to implement, economical to operate, and reflects the many ways in which technology has allowed the spheres of personal and professional life to blend together. It allows for a young professional to care for her newborn child or a son to care for his ailing mother in the comfort of their own homes, without worrying what would happen should they have to spend a portion of their day in an office, away from those who depend on their presence.

I am proud to say that at the end of 2005, Fairfax County in Virginia was able to meet the region-wide target of having 20 percent of eligible workers engaged in teleworking. I would invite my colleagues to take note of teleworking's success and stand up for a worker's ability to set his or her own schedule, with the expectation that it will allow for a more flexible lifestyle without compromising productivity. Rather than relying on the desks, chairs, and file cabinets that defined the average employee's office a generation ago, telework allows Americans to bring the workplace to them, not the other way around.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why our friends and colleagues on the other side were very much concerned over the cost estimate that the Congressional Budget Office came up with for this health insurance plan. But there are some things in the CBO report that we also need to be aware of.

First of all, over the next decade, there will actually be a $6 billion surplus. So in terms of adding to the deficit, it doesn't. It actually adds a surplus. But they also estimate that only about 3 percent of Americans will actually choose the public option. So 97 percent of Americans will continue to be in their private plan. They also estimate that the amount of employer-provided coverage is going to increase. So this is hardly some kind of socialized government takeover of health care when 97 percent will continue to be insured by their own employer.

Now, the real reason why I think this needs to be done is that health insurance premiums have gone up by 3 fold in the past 9 years. And that is why we need health care reform.

I thank my chairman of the committee.

This is a good bill, but the other side wants to change it by restricting access to reproductive services, by limiting research in AIDS, and particularly--and this is the issue I want to speak to right now--by preventing the exchange of clean needles among drug addicts.

Well, I think people need to know that we have had experimentation with this kind of punitive prohibitive action because over the last several years the same people as are pushing this amendment have been successful in imposing this restriction on the District of Columbia, and we know what the results are.

For the last 6 years, we have seen an increase in AIDS among female residents of the District of Columbia of 76 percent. We now have a larger number of women with AIDS in D.C. than in any place in the country. Now, why? Well, it hasn't happened in other cities. In fact, in New York City they saw a reduction of 75 percent in AIDS infection since they were able to make clean needles available. 61 percent of women who have AIDS get it through injection of dirty needles.

Now, of course, it's women also who have babies, and what could be worse than a child born to a life of suffering, deprivation and early death? But, in fact, largely as a result of what was the Tiahrt amendment imposed on D.C. for the last 6 years, there is now a rate of children born with AIDS that is 54 times the rest of the country children of women with AIDS from with HIV infection, is 54 times greater in D.C. largely because of the Tiahrt amendment to prohibit clean needle availability.

Now, this is the result of the kind of punitive legislation that the other side would like to impose on the rest of the country with this bill.

Let's keep this bill clean. It's a good bill.