Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Chairman Rahall. And I thank my colleagues Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott. I understand Mr. Wolf's original reluctance to originally agree with the bill, but we have put in language that I understand is now acceptable to Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wolf genuinely was concerned about the possibility of casino gambling in Virginia. The language in this bill addresses that satisfactorily to Mr. Wolf. So I would hope that others who have previously opposed this legislation would follow Mr. Wolf's leadership and support it. We are having some discussions on a very small piece of land with Mr. Goodlatte, another colleague from Virginia, and I trust we can work that out.

These six Indian tribes have sacrificed a great deal and have undergone quite an amount of demeaning treatment over generations. This is the right thing to do. We don't do this very often in the Congress of the United States, but this is a unique situation. These are the Indian tribes that enabled the first English settlers to survive in the colonies. We have right here in the Dome of the Capitol John Gadsby Chapman's dramatic painting of Pocahontas' baptism. That commemorates a landmark historic event, but it is connected to what happened 400 years ago when these Indians enabled the English settlers to survive, and eventually it led to Virginia being one of the original 13 colonies. We know the situation today, but what we do not know is the history of the Indian tribes that enabled the English settlers to survive on this continent. They have been very badly treated. And, in fact, even though they have a treaty signed with King Charles II in 1677, in the early part of the 20th century, the Commonwealth of Virginia conducted what was called a paper genocide. They made it illegal to be an American Indian in Virginia. They went into the courthouses and destroyed the birth records and everything they could relating to the legitimacy of these Indian tribes, even though everyone knew that they did actually exist. This was a time of severe racism, a time that we are very shamed by. But these Indian tribes never gave up their pride or their stature.

I thank my good friend, Chairman Rahall from West Virginia, who has been tremendous in supporting this legislation.

To go back to the history behind this bill, this is so much a matter of pride and the restoration of justice. They survived even though they were denied employment and were denied educational opportunities. The only people who provided it were Christian missionaries. They oppose gambling. They don't even take advantage of the opportunity to have bingo games, which other nonprofits do in their vicinity, because they don't think it's the right thing. So I don't think that's any kind of a threat. Every other objection that has been raised I think has been adequately and fully addressed.

These are good people, and they have been subjected to a great deal that was unjust. We should have done this by the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, but today we are about to do so two years later.

Now there was a Supreme Court decision just a few months ago in February, and that Supreme Court decision said that the Secretary of the Interior no longer has unilateral discretion to determine what lands can be put in trust. That's why some additional lands and counties were included in this bill in case there is land that would be given to these Indian tribes in the future. They are willing to compromise on this, to give up virtually all of that potential territory. They're left with very little land and very few rights. The laws of Virginia would apply on this land. They are not allowed to engage in gambling like other Indian tribes. This is a part of a list of compromises they have made. They've made all of these compromises because it is important to them that their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren recognize that these are Native American people deserving of our utmost respect. They are people who deserve to be able to hold their chins up in pride for what they meant to this country.

I strongly urge support of this legislation. It's overdue.

Mr. Chairman, I know it is against the rules of the House to address anyone but the Speaker.

If it were allowed, I would want to address the 2,500 or so members of the six Virginia tribes seeking Federal recognition.

I would say that I know their quest to assert their identity and their rights has been a long struggle.

Despite centuries of racial hostility and coercion by the Commonwealth of Virginia and others, they have refused to yield their most basic human right and have suffered and lost much.

But, throughout the centuries they have retained their dignity and supported their people.

When it appeared that no one else would, when little was available, when even the doors of public school house were closed to their children, they have never yielded to those who said they didn't exist.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Virginia tribes; win or lose today, you have already won by refusing to yield and by remaining true and faithful to who you are.

I would also say that it has been an honor for me to have helped carry this legislation.

While it is less than ideal, it moves you closer to the day our national government recognizes your existence.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of this chamber know, the crafting of congressional legislation is far from a perfect process. But, when it speaks, it speaks with the people's voice.

Today, I encourage my colleagues to speak and finally affirm that the Virginia tribes exist and deserve Federal recognition.

I thank my good friend and outstanding chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

I know the House leadership and Chairman Rahall are undertaking some risk in having scheduled this legislation because this type of legislation is invariably controversial. But Congress' past reluctance to grant Federal recognition and the demeaning and dysfunctional acknowledgement process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs has served to compound a grave injustice that this legislation will redress.

The Virginia tribes identified in this legislation, as I mentioned earlier, are the direct descendants of the tribes that greeted and ensured the survival of the first permanent English colony in the New World.

Almost exactly 2 years ago to this day, we marked the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. It was an event important enough to bring Queen Elizabeth across the Atlantic to commemorate.

While the 1607 settlement succeeded and laid the English claim and foundation for the original 13 colonies, history has not been very kind to Virginia's Native Americans of the great Powhatan Confederacy who greeted the English and provided food and assistance to ensure their initial survival.

Few are aware today that the direct descendants of the Native Americans who met these settlers are with us today. And in fact, some are in the Chamber watching. And they are still awaiting their due recognition by our Federal Government. This is the opportunity to correct this grave wrong.

This bill, at long last, is named after Thomasina E. Jordan, who fought in such a committed way to get this recognition once she realized the history of discrimination that necessitated it. It grants recognition to the six Indian tribes in Virginia, and I would like to name them: the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan and the Nansemond. The Commonwealth of Virginia recognized all six tribes in the 1980s. It is now time for the Federal Government, by this act of the U.S. Congress, to do the same.

Like most Native Americans, the Virginia tribes welcomed Western settlers but quickly became subdued. The settlers had guns, and Indians had bows and arrows. They were pushed off their land, and up through much of the 20th century, denied any rights as U.S. citizens.

Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians survived centuries of racial hostility and coercive State and State-sanctioned actions that tried to eradicate their heritage and cultural identity.

The history of Virginia tribes is unique in two important ways that are relevant to why this bill is on the House floor today. The first explains why the Virginia tribes were never recognized by the Federal Government. The second explains why congressional action is absolutely needed. The first circumstance is that unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained Federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the Federal Government, Virginia's tribes signed their peace treaties with the kings of England.

Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and Charles II that is still observed by Virginia every year when the Governor accepts tribute. I was there with Mr. Scott just this year. Governor Kaine accepted a deer that was brought by the tribes. And it is a ceremony that has been observed for 331 years. It is the longest celebrated treaty in the United States today.

Now the second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they experienced in the hands of the State government during the first half of the 20th century that Mr. Hastings has alluded to. It is called a ``paper genocide.'' At a time when the Federal Government granted Native Americans the right to vote, Virginia's elected officials adopted racially hostile laws targeted at those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white society.

These actions culminated with the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 that targeted Native Americans and sought to deny them their identity. The act empowered zealots, like Dr. Walter Plecker. He was in charge of the Bureau of Records at the State and he destroyed all the State and local courthouse records and reclassified, in Orwellian fashion, all nonwhites in the words of the day as ``colored.''

It targeted Native Americans and sought to deny them their identity. Calling yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia risked a jail sentence of 1 year. For up to 50 years, State officials waged a war to destroy all public and private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. That law remained in effect until it was struck down in the Federal courts in 1967.

All six tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgement seeking Federal recognition. But it is a heavy burden. They have been told it won't happen in their lifetime. The acknowledgement process is expensive. It is subject to unreasonable delays. It lacks dignity. We ought to address that separately. But Virginia's history of this paper genocide only further complicates these tribes' quest for Federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating State and official documents. They can't really prove it because the documents were destroyed.

I thank my good friend. So here they are told to prove their existence, and yet the State government destroyed the proof of their existence, again aggravating an injustice that had already been visited upon these people. The only people who cared about them were Christian missionaries who allowed them to get some education. But they were denied employment for much of their history in the 20th century in Virginia.

We are rectifying this wrong today. And in light of the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, we will bring closure to this national injustice. There is no doubt that these tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first Western European settlers set foot in America, and they are here with us today.

I know there is great resistance from Congress to grant any American tribe Federal recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimension influence many Members' perspectives in tribal recognition issues.

The Virginia tribes have agreed to forgo gaming. An amendment offered by Congressman Duncan offered last session was approved by the Natural Resources Committee. That is in this bill before us. It prohibits these tribes from gaming under Federal law even if one day the State were to reverse course and set up gambling casinos in the State. The State can have gambling casinos. These Indians cannot. Go figure. But that is the way the legislation reads.

The Virginia tribes, under the bill being considered today, could not engage in gambling on their sovereign lands. The Virginia tribes are also prepared to grant Virginia full civil and criminal jurisdiction over any future reservation lands until such time as the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Attorney General agree that they have developed an acceptable alternative judicial framework that the Federal Government can honor.

Mr. Chairman, these tribes recognize that the legislative route to recognition is a very imperfect process and that compromise is a necessary ingredient. That compromise and that balance have now been struck. Now is the time to pass this legislation. Failure to do so would unravel the progress we have made and lose this time in history for these tribes to finally gain Federal recognition. It would be a setback and an injustice. They have suffered enough injustices. Let's not add another one.

Congress has the power to recognize these tribes. It has exercised these powers in the past. It should exercise this power again for these six tribes. More than 300 of the 562 federally recognized tribes have been recognized by an act of Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We will be doing our part to bring closure to some tragic and unjust acts that have transpired since Englishmen established their first permanent settlement more than 400 years ago in this New World. This is the right thing to do. I trust that Congress will do it today.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, first of all, this land was the Indians' land. The Monacan tribe owned much of this land. It was taken from them.

Now, in terms of the counties that my friend, Mr. Goodlatte, has included, there is no land currently that would be placed in trust. All they want is the ability to place land in trust because of the recent Supreme Court decision that said that the Secretary of the Interior does not have discretion to do this.

Now, this Supreme Court decision just occurred in February, so it's a brand new context in which these things are dealt with. If it had not been for the Supreme Court decision, these additional counties would not have been added. But they're added in case people in those counties who are understanding of the plight of the Monacan Indians chose to provide land to them. We don't know that that's even going to occur. There is only one very small parcel of land that the Monacan tribe is aware of that it would receive from a current landowner in Rockbridge County.

Now, the Indian tribes have compromised so much for so long, I think that they would compromise again if necessary. But to deny them this one small plot of land that's relatively isolated, it's certainly a long ways from Interstate 81 or any main highway, it doesn't seem to me fair.

So if the gentleman was willing to accommodate that land in Rockbridge County, maybe, once again, the Indian tribes would agree to compromise and preclude the other counties included in Mr. Goodlatte's amendment.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Reserving the right to object, my concern with this modification is only one; not the specificity of the modifying amendment, but it's subject to the approval of Rockbridge County. What does that mean? Does there have to be some formal legislation passed by Rockbridge County? Is it the County Board? Do they have to pass formal legislation and by when?

I would be fine with it up to the approval part, but I don't know what the approval part constitutes.

Would the gentleman accept language that said, ``unless disapproved by the Rockbridge County government''?

In other words, I hate to have it so that the Rockbridge County government can just decide to sit on this indefinitely. But if they specifically, through their County Board, disapproved it, then I guess that would be acceptable. But I don't want to give the kind of leverage where inaction might preclude this from occurring.

By the same token, unless disapproved within 180 days of passage, because your argument applies just as well.

The gentleman makes a legitimate point, and I will withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, just before we went into the last recess, we passed much-needed, overdue legislation relating to credit card abuse. That was a good, responsible thing to do. But in the process of doing that, this Congress did something that was grossly irresponsible. We passed legislation enabling anyone who wants to to bring a loaded, concealed firearm onto national parks, so that the hundreds of thousands of American families who would like to enjoy our parks safe in the knowledge that their families are secure from the threat of wanton violence can no longer have that sense of security.

A particularly egregious case in point is the Wolf Trap Center for the Performing Arts, a national treasure. Any number of performing artists are now informing Wolf Trap that they do not want to go to Wolf Trap because their lives are endangered by this legislation.

It's time to fix this legislation, provide for the security of the American people, and not the profit of the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Speaker, the Flat Earth Party is, once again, in a state of denial.

Much of the leadership and membership of the Republican Party is denying even the existence of global warming as a tactic to defeat the desperately needed clean green jobs legislation that we are just about to bring to the House floor.

Imagine. Forget the fact that more than 2,500 of the most respected scientists from 130 countries have concluded unequivocally that global warming does exist, that it is a very serious problem, and that it is undoubtedly a result of human activity.

The accelerated pace of global warming threatens hundreds of millions of people who live near the shoreline from flooding or from drought depending on your location on this planet. In fact, in Juneau, Alaska, they're building an 18-hole golf course on land that just a few years ago was submerged underwater. They're losing more than 30 feet a year from the shoreline.

One has to wonder how the party of ``No'' still really feels about the theory that the Earth may revolve around the sun.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn Amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights that will allow for loaded, concealed weapons to be carried in National Parks, ending a long-standing prohibition against the practice. This amendment is not germane to the underlying bill, makes our parks and historic sites less safe, and increases the opportunity for illegal poaching of protected wildlife.

Last year, the Bush Administration tried to push through similar regulations as contained in this amendment, undoing Reagan-era restrictions on the possession of loaded, concealed weapons in National Parks. During the public comment period 140,000 people voiced their opinion, 73 percent of which opposed the new regulations. Despite this public rejection, the Bush administration finalized the regulations. Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court ruled against the implementation of the regulations because the process was ``astoundingly flawed'' and because officials ignored substantial evidence regarding the impact the new regulations would have on the environment.

Today, Congress is trying to surreptitiously enact ill-conceived and dangerous policy as an attachment to an entirely separate piece of legislation. Allowing loaded, concealed weapons in National Parks will endanger National Park Service employees, National Park visitors, and wildlife. While the NRA may support this wrong-headed policy change, the amendment is opposed by the Association of National Park Rangers, the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge--Fraternal Order of Police, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of Park Service Retirees. Quite simply, those who would be directly impacted by this action believe it is unwise and will endanger the lives of both humans and wildlife.

The need for this change, according to proponents, is to allow National Park visitors the ability to protect themselves from potential violence. But National Parks are exceedingly safe places, experiencing much lower rates of crime than in the general public. In fact, National Parks experience 1.6 violent crimes per 100,000 visitors, much lower than the over 170 violent crimes per 100,000 individuals recorded among the general public. The more likely result of this provision is an increase in gun accidents and poaching activity. This amendment will make National Park visitors less safe, not more.

Proponents also insist this amendment is about restoring Second Amendment rights to citizens. Yet, even in the Supreme Court's Heller v. D.C. ruling, the Court was clear that the Second Amendment is not absolute and that certain restrictions could be established to protect public safety. I believe prohibiting concealed weapons in National Parks is one such allowable restriction.

National Parks are natural cathedrals. They are places where Americans can go to escape their everyday lives and experience the beauty of the natural world. Current regulations requiring weapons to be unloaded or disassembled, regulations first imposed by the Reagan Administration, have served the public interest for the past 25 years. The Coburn amendment is unnecessary, non-germane, and dangerous. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of May as National Women's Health Month. This designation encourages women to make their own health a top priority by obtaining regular medical checkups and preventive screenings.

As we urge women to prioritize their own health care, we must also call attention to the disproportionate impact the health care crisis is having on women, particularly women of childbearing age.

In fact, earlier this month the Department of Health and Human Services released a new report, titled Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System Does Not Work for Women which states that women, especially those of reproductive age, are more vulnerable to high health care costs because they require more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly Pap tests, mammograms, and obstetric and gynecological care.

While the study sheds much needed light on the impact of the nation's health care crisis on women, its findings are not surprising.

Last year, I had the opportunity to visit a women's health clinic run by Planned Parenthood and saw first hand patients seeking the affordable, accessible, high-quality preventive reproductive health care.

At Planned Parenthood clinics, health professionals provide over 950,000 cervical cancer screenings and breast exams to more than 850,000 women. Sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment are performed and made available to both women and men. In fact, 97 percent of the services provided at these clinics are preventative.

In Virginia alone these clinics provide basic health care, including lifesaving cancer screenings, to over 28,500 patients a year. But these clinics are only meeting a fraction of the need in my state. There are 846,100 women in need of contraceptive services and supplies. Of these, 371,640 women need publicly supported contraceptive services because they have incomes below 250 percent of the federal poverty level (251,710) or are sexually active teenagers (119,930). Eleven percent of women aged 15-44 have incomes below the federal poverty level, and 18 percent of all women in this age-group are uninsured (i.e., do not have private health insurance or Medicaid coverage).

Increasing health insurance coverage for women is essential. Approximately 17 million American women have no health insurance coverage. It's critical that health care reform requires coverage of comprehensive reproductive health services.

With the economic downturn, these health centers have seen a significant increase in utilization, just as their funding streams, both

public and private, have become more precarious. Across the country, they are seeing an increase in patients--women who have lost their jobs and health insurance, or who no longer have money to pay for medical care. These women are literally choosing between a month of birth control and bus fare.

Planned Parenthood health centers are part of an important network of women's health care providers and serve as a critical entry point into the health care system for millions of women.

In fact, Guttmacher reports more than six in ten clients consider family planning centers their main source of health care. Oftentimes, it is their first interaction with the country's health care system.

This is why increasing health insurance coverage is not enough. Ensuring access to a strong network of health care providers is fundamental to improving health care coordination and quality outcomes.

A strong women's health care infrastructure must be developed as we proceed with health care reform. Women need preventative services for reproductive and general health. Planned Parenthood clinics are providing these services now and we should make sure they continue to do so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with Representative Mary Bono Mack, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009, which would require the labeling of all garments containing animal fur.

Current law contains a glaring loophole that allows garments containing less than $150 dollars in fur to be sold in the U.S. without an identifying label. The result is that consumers lack the information they need to make informed choices and may inadvertently purchase garments that contain real fur, possibly from a dog or cat. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) strongly supports this bill as a way to guarantee consumers full and accurate information and to cut down on the amount of illegal dog and cat fur making its way into the

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

We are in agreement on three things that we want to accomplish: We want to win the war against violent extremism, we want to punish those people who are responsible for harming or intending to harm Americans, and we want to make all Americans as safe and secure as possible.

Now, we are engaged in a long war. It is a war against violent extremism, but it will continue forever unless we understand the elements that the enemy is using against us because it's not a war that will lend itself to any military victory.

In fact, our most effective weapon is to simply be true to the values and principles that define who we are as a Nation. And the most lethal weapon that the enemy has in its possession is to point out those instances where we have not been true to our values and principles, where we have been hypocritical, where we have yielded to fear of the unknown, where we have appealed to the most basic instincts. We are a better nation than that.

That's why Guantanamo is important, because there are a limitless number of young impressionable men who, in fact, will be recruited by the enemy for generations to come if we don't stand up and show that we are true to our principles.

Initially in the first few years of the Afghan war, 772 people were rounded up, very few by American forces. They were turned over by tribal chieftains for bounties, $5,000, sometimes less. We took them and put them in Guantanamo because we didn't know what to do with them. We interrogated virtually all of them to see what they might know, whether or not we knew that they had been involved in any hostile action against the United States. And, in fact, 85 percent of them we know were not involved in any hostile action against the United States.

Now we are faced with a decision. Do we move forward with a policy that is obviously causing us to lose ground in this war against violent extremism? Or do we change course? And what we are urging--not in this bill because this bill simply requires us to put together a plan.

The fact is that Guantanamo is not the punitive place that it used to be, but it does not serve our purposes to keep it open.

We have courts of justice. If people have committed harm against the United States, they need to be prosecuted. They need to be punished. It's not going to work if we try to do that at Guantanamo. And those who we don't have evidence against are going to have to eventually be released.

Now, you know this really is about seizing and holding the moral high ground. And it is about who we are as Americans. That is the only way we win this war against violent extremism.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) National Trademark Expo. In a time of great 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 National Trademark Expo was a great success and was attended by more than 7,000 from the trademark community as well as the public at large. This year's 2-day event will be held on Friday, May 8th, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and Saturday, May 9th, 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 Trademark Expo will highlight the different types of trademarks including trademarks that identify shapes and configurations of products, century-old registered trademarks, the historical evolution and transformation of trademarks, and the history of people behind certain trademarks.

The USPTO campus will turn into a ``Trademark Theme Park'' featuring company booths, themed displays, costumed characters, and inflatables. Additions to this year's Trademark Expo include guided tours, activities for children, and educational lectures on anti- counterfeiting, how to file a trademark, and ``Trademarks 101.'' A large cast of costumed characters masquerading to tunes played by the United States Air Force Band's brass quintet promise a festive introduction for speakers at this year's opening ceremony.

During the Trademark Expo, costumed trademarked characters that the public has come to associate with particular goods and services, including the Pillsbury Doughboy, Sprout, Hershey's Kisses, Maisy, Curious George, Peter Rabbit, Energizer Bunny, Mr. Jelly Belly, and The Grinch, among others, will parade about the USPTO campus, and large inflatable characters, including The Cat in the Hat, Thomas the engine from Thomas & Friends, and Green Giant, will decorate the grounds. Costumed characters in the shape of crayons from Crayola, displayed in a spectrum of colors, will escort children through the educational activities including a story time featuring literary trademarked characters sponsored by Hooray for Books!, a local children's bookstore. The Hershey's Kissmobile and a UPS truck will help tell the story of the prevalence of trademarks in our daily lives and their value as source indicators.

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, and trademarks assist the public in discerning between authentic and counterfeit merchandise.

Some of America's leading large corporations, small businesses with unfolding success stories, governmental agencies, and non-profit corporations will highlight the various types of trademarks and the benefits of Federal trademark registration. The exhibitors include Bridgestone Corporation, Burberry Limited, Callaway Golf Company, CMG Worldwide, Inc., Fred Gretsch Enterprises/The Bigsby Company, Galaxy Systems, Inc., International Trademark Association (INTA), Internet Keep Safe Coalition, The Hershey Company/Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation, The Pepsom Group, Inc., The Travelers Companies, Inc., United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Urangatang Web Design, LLC, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Department of Energy.

The Trademark Expo will emphasize the essential role the USPTO plays in reviewing applications for trademarks and issuing federal trademark registrations. An award-winning leader in handling electronic filings, the USPTO will also showcase its electronic trademark application system.

During these uncertain economic times, I applaud the USPTO for its continued efforts to educate the public on the role of trademarks through the National Trademark Expo. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the USPTO, at this time when trademark protection and intellectual property rights play an increasingly important role in our global economy.

Madam Speaker, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has come under some harsh criticism for suggesting the money we make available to Afghanistan and Pakistan be conditioned. Chairman Obey is right. When you consider the fact that we have put $33 billion into Afghanistan and $12 billion into Pakistan without conditions, you have to ask ``What has it gotten us?''

We seem to be losing the war in Afghanistan because the leadership of the enemy has a haven in Pakistan. Of all the money we have given to the military in Pakistan, they have 450,000 trained, equipped troops on the southern border with our ally India and one brigade on the north where we need them. Former members of the ISI affiliated with the Pak army located just south of Lahore, Pakistan trained and executed a massacre of 152 people in Mumbai, India.

They just released an extremist cleric that is arguing for sharia law across the land. They have just allowed the Swat Valley to be taken over by the Taliban. Of course we need our money conditioned. If they want American taxpayers' money, they need to start serving America's interests.

Well, it looks like another party-line vote, another partisan exercise.

My friend from Texas leading the opposition says that free enterprise works best when we leave it alone. Really? We have tried that approach for the last 8 years, cutting taxes and deregulating businesses. And where has it led us? To the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Trillions of dollars lost to this economy, millions of jobs, and our largest debt holder is Communist China. They're the only ones that came out whole from your experiment.

Now, it's true that we've had some of the largest corporate profit in history over the last 8 years, but much of it came from moving money around, in some cases deluding homebuyers and squeezing credit cardholders. And, in fact, 94 percent of the income growth went to the top 10 percent, leaving about 6 percent of income growth for the bottom 90 percent. And so what did they do? They borrowed more and more from their home equity values, and they borrowed more and more from their credit cards.

And now what we're doing is to step over on to the side of the consumer and the homeowner. And that's why we have had any number of pieces of legislation to protect homebuyers so they could stay in their home, make their mortgage payments. And now we're dealing with credit cardholders. And we're not being unfair. All this is imposing fair business practices, looking out for the consumer, because the fact is that they have been subject to very unfair practices, arbitrary interest rate increases, over-the-limit fees. Cardholders who pay on time are hit with unfair penalties, due-date gimmicks, any number of things that this legislation addresses, appropriately.

I can't imagine that we would be opposing fair business practices that all of us would want for our children, for our parents, for our friends.

None of these are unreasonable. They should have been done years ago. I hope, for example, we will even add to them by letting people know if they only pay the minimum monthly payment when they will ever be able to pay off their credit card debt. Stop sending all these credit cards to young people on college campuses. Thirty-six credit cards the average American family is getting. It's out of control.

It's time to put it under control. Let's pass this unanimously.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Representative Price's amendment to H.R. 627. This is an issue on which I have worked for a number of years, so I am honored to be able to join my friend and colleague, and to urge adoption of this critical consumer protection amendment. This provision is a valuable disclosure amendment which would call for card issuers to provide three very important pieces of information to cardholders at least once per calendar quarter on their billing statements.

First, the statement would report how long it would take the cardholder to pay off the entire balance if only the minimum monthly payment is paid.

Second, the statement would report the total cost to the consumer of only making the required minimum payments, with a breakdown of the resulting principal and interest shares of the total cost.

Third, the statement would report the estimated monthly payments required for the consumer to pay off the entire balance in a period of 12, 24 and 36 months.

This is important for the more than 100 million households with revolving loan credit of nearly $1 trillion according to the Federal Reserve, who have average credit card debt of $7,430--particularly middle- and low-income families, who are carrying record amounts of debt--both in absolute value and as a share of their total income--and who often don't realize they are digging themselves further into debt as they make their minimum monthly payments. With the average credit card debt per card-holding household carrying a balance of $17,103, some 49.7 million do not pay their balance in full every month. We need to make sure there is simple and clear information for these families.

In 2007 alone, there were 5.2 billion credit card solicitations mailed, a average of 36 per household. Just plain truth in disclosure warrants this important change to ensure that any family fully understands what is at stake.

I stand in support of both H.R. 627 and this amendment to it, which will require the disclosure of information to consumers that will help them to make more informed choices and to better plan their finances and thus their futures.

Madam Speaker, under Chairman Spratt's leadership, the Congress is poised to pass a budget resolution. But unfortunately it's likely to be a party-line vote. The Republicans are asking us to trust them, they have a better way. The only sane response to that is, You gotta be kidding.

You had 8 years to manage this country's budget and you blew it. In fact, you took a $5.6 trillion projected surplus and turned it into $5.8 trillion of deficits. It's the worst fiscal management over a Presidential administration in American history. And now they want us to trust them?

In fact, we have stayed afloat by borrowing. And now our biggest debtor is the Communist Chinese dictatorship. They own more American debt than anyone else.

We have had more Americans unemployed, more Americans in poverty, and more Americans without health insurance. This budget needs to pass for the sake of the American people. We need to look back and realize who the American people can trust to be fiscally responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

This bill will extend federal hate crimes law to protect individuals targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Since the federal government began collecting data in 1991, over 100,000 hate crimes have been reported by state and local officials; but, most analysts believe this data significantly underreports the actual number of hate crimes. During this time period, approximately 16% of hate crimes were perpetrated because of a person's sexual orientation. With 1,265 reported incidents in 2007, sexual orientation is the third most common target of hate-based violence, trailing only race and religion. This bill is a logical improvement to existing federal law and is needed to ensure that the federal government has the jurisdiction to assist in all cases of hate-based violence.

In addition to expanding the categories of hate crimes, this legislation would allow the Justice Department to aid the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes at the local level through technical assistance and supplemental funding. The cost of investigating and prosecuting these often high-profile cases can be prohibitive for a local community, forcing them to spend precious resources on one case. In these instances, it is essential for the federal government to be able to provide assistance to ensure that justice is served without unduly burdening local resources.

Finally, this bill would require the Justice Department to expand its tracking of hate

crimes to include crimes based on gender or gender identity. The federal government currently collects data on hate crimes committed due to sexual orientation and disability, but not for gender or gender identity. This expanded resource will provide law enforcement officials the information they need to more accurately gauge the prevalence of hate crimes and to evaluate efforts to combat this violence.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is an overdue step towards addressing all forms of hate-based violence that traumatize communities across the country. 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. That is what this bill does, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Plastic Bag Reduction Act,'' legislation that will protect our watersheds, and ultimately the marine environment, by reducing a major source of coastal and marine debris, single-use packaging.

Trash in our watersheds interferes with public use and enjoyment of natural resources, can be hazardous to wildlife, and can break down into tiny ``microplastics'' that enter the food chain, carrying toxins with them. Trash is a serious problem in the Potomac and Anacostia River watersheds, where every year cleanup efforts retrieve tons of plastic bags and beverage containers.

Much of the trash that reaches major watersheds does not stay in the watersheds--it is washed out to sea and becomes marine debris. Scientists are becoming alarmed about massive ``garbage patches'' that are building up in nearly all of the world's oceans. The best-known patch consists of an estimated 100 million tons of plastic debris that has accumulated inside a circular vortex of currents known as the North Pacific gyre. It is estimated to be anywhere from 270,000 square miles to almost 580,000 square miles--between six and thirteen times the size of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Eighty per cent of the plastic in these ocean gyres is believed to come from the land.

The debris that chokes our inland watersheds, our coastlines, and the marine environment sickens and kills thousands of animals every year. Over 267 species worldwide have been impacted by plastic bags and other litter through entanglement or ingestion. Scientists are also realizing that the increasing volume of plastic that is slowly decomposing in the world's oceans may present a longterm problem for marine food chains. As plastic items break down, any toxic additives they contain-- including flame retardants, antimicrobials, and plasticizers--may be released into the ocean environment. Not only are the components of the plastics themselves entering the food chain, but so are toxic chemicals that attach to the plastic particles because of plastic's molecular tendency to attract oils.

Many of these chemicals may disrupt the endocrine system--the delicately balanced set of hormones and glands that affect virtually every organ and cell. In marine environments, excess estrogen has led to discoveries of male fish and seagulls with female sex organs.

The Plastic Bag Reduction Act encourages consumers to choose reusable bags by imposing a 5 cent tax on single-use carryout bags beginning January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2015, the amount of the tax increases to 25 cents per bag. The tax applies to paper as well as to plastic single-use carryout bags. Of each 5 cents charged to the customer, the retail seller may apply for a tax credit of one cent for carrying out a qualified carryout bag recycling program. Of each 5 cents charged to the customer, one cent will be transferred to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Finally, the bill directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the provisions of the legislation and evaluate whether imposing a tax on other products, such as food wrappers and containers, could reduce the use of those products.

I am also co-sponsoring Congressman Markey's ``Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act of 2009.'' This legislation will impose a 5 cent deposit on beverage containers, which will reduce the number of bottles and cans that end up as trash in oceans and inland watersheds.

Madam Speaker, human health is directly linked to the health of our watersheds and

oceans. Each of us needs to take responsibility for protecting these essential resources. We can do so through the simple step of taking reusable bags with us when we shop. The Trash Free Watersheds Act creates a tax that I hope no American will choose to pay.

I rise to thank and praise Mitch King for his exemplary 36 years of public service--a career which has spanned 11 Postmaster Generals and during which mail service has expanded to serve more than 149 million addresses every day, becoming the country's largest retail network.

Mitch is the epitome of a true public servant: he was and is always professional, always ready to help with any issue, and always on the lookout for constructive solutions. It has been an honor to benefit from his contributions both on the House Appropriations Committee and in my District over the years, and it is only right that we should honor and salute him for his more than three decades of service.

Mr. King is one of several Managers in the Government Relations Department at the U.S. Postal Service Headquarters in Washington, DC, responsible for Congressional Liaison and legislative activities. He will retire from the Postal Service on May 1, after 36 years of service.

During the later part of his career, he managed Postal Service Congressional Liaison activities for the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the District of Columbia. He was also responsible for postal-related legislative activity within the House Appropriations Committee. Additionally, one of his ad hoc activities included service on the Elections Center-sponsored Election Mail Task Force.

Mitch began his postal career in 1973 as a letter carrier in my District in Falls Church. Subsequently, he became a supervisor of letter carriers, before becoming an Instructor in

the Delivery Service Branch of the Postal Service Management Academy in Potomac, Maryland. By the spring of 1982, he began working in the Government Relations Department at the U.S. Postal Service Headquarters in Washington, DC. In 1992, he was promoted to the position of Government Relations Manager; a Postal Career Executive position.

Since then he has managed government relations activities with many Members of Congress, addressing an ever expanding variety of postal- related issues. He has also served as the principal postal contact for the House Appropriations Committee and the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee. While the Postal Service receives only minimal funding to support free mail for the blind and overseas voters, Mitch has been an extraordinary resource to us in addressing a host of postal issues which have arisen in our committee.

Mitch and his wife, Mickey Fenyk-King, recently celebrated their 35th anniversary. Now, they look forward to having more time to spend with family and friends and to exploring the world together. They have surely earned our thanks and congratulations for a job well done and our very best wishes for their journeys ahead.