Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I will vote ``present'' on Resolution 34. While the intent of this resolution is to speak out against terrorism and to reiterate U.S. support for Israel's security, I am deeply concerned that the message it send may be contrary to the best interests of both Israel and the Palestinians. A solution to this crisis in the Middle East must be diplomatic; it will not be achieved by military force.

The resolution contains many facts, but it omits others that are important. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported January 8 that since the Israeli military operation ``Cast Lead'' began, 758 Palestinians have been killed, including 60 women and 257 children. More than 3,000 Palestinians have been injured. Israeli media reported that 11 Israelis have been killed, most of them soldiers, 3 from ``friendly fire.'' Of paramount concern today is to stop the loss of life, to allow medical supplies and personnel to enter Gaza, and to provide emergency care to those who have been injured.

The citizens of Gaza, most of whom are refugees, have nowhere to go. They are prevented from fleeing into Israel or Egypt and are cornered in one of the most populated areas in the world.

This resolution emphasizes Israel's right to defend itself. Of course it has that right. But we also need to stand strongly in solidarity with both Israelis and Palestinians who want peace and an end to the horrific cycle of violence that manifests itself so horribly in Gaza today. I agree that the ultimate goal of the United States is a sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will ensure the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and a viable, independent, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel. Unfortunately, I do not believe this resolution moves us closer to this goal, and because of this, I vote present.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won't take that much time. I do want to thank the chairman for his masterful leadership on this bill, and I do want to clarify that the intent of this legislation is to authorize the Treasury Department to strengthen credit markets by infusing capital into weak institutions in two ways: By buying their stock, debt, or other capital instruments; and, two, by purchasing bad assets from the institutions, in coordination with existing regulatory agencies and their responsibilities under this legislation, as well as under already existing authorization for prompt, corrective action and least-cost resolution.

I'd be happy to yield.

Nice going, Chairman. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Treasury Department's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) will have the ability to support the financial system through the purchase of securities and through investing in equity/preferred securities. I strongly believe equity infusion if used wisely will have greater benefits for our economy and yield higher returns to American taxpayers.

A strong consensus among financiers and economists has developed supporting these conclusions. George Soros, Joeseph Stigliz, Bradford Delong, Paul Krugman, John Makin, Alex Pollack, Lucien Bebchuk, and Edmund Phelps are a sample of the bipartisan expertise that has contributed to the debate and strongly support the finding that using capital infusions rather than distressed asset purchases alone will have a far greater re-invigorating effect on our economy.

If done effectively, equity infusions will introduce 10 to 12 times the amount of the initial government investment into our credit markets. This means that capital infusions of $700 billion would yield credit flow effects totaling $8.4 trillion. In contrast, distressed asset purchases of $700 billion yield credit flow effects of only $700 billion. Capital infusions could give us 12 times the support for the communities and small businesses that badly need credit.

The capital infusion approach would involve using Warren Buffett type investment strategies and would result in the government owning equity interests in the institutions which are assisted. If these government investments do only half as well as Buffett's investments in distressed institutions such as Goldman Sachs, U.S. taxpayers will earn as much as $200 billion profit when the financial sector recovers. This is far beyond any forecast return to taxpayers from buying distressed assets. In fact the difference for taxpayers of the two methods could be as large as $375 billion. This will result in lower taxes longer term and better health care, better schools, and a cleaner environment. Because it is sound, transparent and effective, it will restore global confidence in the U.S. economy.

I attach three articles from George Soros, Lucien Bebchuk, and Joseph Stiglitz, to be included in the Record.

[From the Financial Times, Oct. 1, 2008]

Recapitalise the Banking System

(By George Soros)

The emergency legislation currently before Congress was

ill-conceived--or more accurately, not conceived at all. As

Congress tried to improve what Treasury originally requested,

an amalgam plan has emerged that consists of Treasury's

original Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) and a quite

different capital infusion programme in which the government

invests and stabilises weakened banks and profits from the

economy's eventual improvement. The capital infusion approach

will cost tax payers less in future years, and may even make

money for them.

Two weeks ago the Treasury did not have a plan ready--that

is why it had to ask for total discretion in spending the

money. But the general idea was to bring relief to the

banking system by relieving banks of their toxic securities

and parking them in a government-owned fund so that they

would not be dumped on the market at distressed prices. With

the value of their investments stabilised, banks would then

be able to raise equity capital.

The idea was fraught with difficulties. The toxic

securities in question are not homogenous and in any auction

process the sellers are liable to dump the dregs on to the

government fund. Moreover, the scheme addresses only one half

of the underlying problem--the lack of credit availability.

It does very little to enable house owners to meet their

mortgage obligations and it does not address the foreclosure

problem. With house prices not yet at the bottom, if the

government bids up the price of mortgage backed securities,

the taxpayers are liable to lose; but if the government does

not pay up, the banking system does not experience much

relief and cannot attract equity capital from the private

sector.

A scheme so heavily favouring Wall Street over Main Street

was politically unacceptable. It was tweaked by the

Democrats, who hold the upper hand, so that it penalises the

financial institutions that seek to take advantage of it. The

Republicans did not want to be left behind and imposed a

requirement that the tendered securities should be insured

against loss at the expense of the tendering institution. The

rescue package as it is now constituted is an amalgam of

multiple approaches. There is now a real danger that the

asset purchase programme will not be fully utilised because

of the onerous conditions attached to it.

Nevertheless, a rescue package was desperately needed and,

in spite of its shortcomings, it would change the course of

events. As late as last Monday, September 22, Treasury

secretary Hank Paulson hoped to avoid using taxpayers'

money; that is why he allowed Lehman Brothers to fail.

Tarp establishes the principle that public funds are

needed and if the present programme does not work, other

programmes will be instituted. We will have crossed the

Rubicon.

Since Tarp was ill-conceived, it is liable to arouse a

negative response from America's creditors. They would see it

as an attempt to inflate away the debt. The dollar is liable

to come under renewed pressure and the government will have

to pay more for its debt, especially at the long end. These

adverse consequences could be mitigated by using taxpayers'

funds more effectively.

Instead of just purchasing troubled assets the bulk of the

funds ought to be used to recapitalise the banking system.

Funds injected at the equity level are more high-powered than

funds used at the balance sheet level by a minimal factor of

twelve--effectively giving the government $8,400bn to re-

ignite the flow of credit. In practice, the effect would be

even greater because the injection of government funds would

also attract private capital. The result would be more

economic recovery and the chance for taxpayers to profit from

the recovery.

This is how it would work. The Treasury secretary would

rely on bank examiners rather than delegate implementation of

Tarp to Wall Street firms. The bank examiners would establish

how much additional equity

capital each bank needs in order to be properly capitalised

according to existing capital requirements. If managements

could not raise equity from the private sector they could

turn to Tarp.

Tarp would invest in preference shares with warrants

attached. The preference shares would carry a low coupon (say

5 per cent) so that banks would find it profitable to

continue lending, but shareholders would pay a heavy price

because they would be diluted by the warrants; they would be

given the right, however, to subscribe on Tarp's terms. The

rights would be tradeable and the secretary of the Treasury

would be instructed to set the terms so that the rights would

have a positive value.

Private investors, including me, are likely to jump at the

opportunity. The recapitalised banks would be allowed to

increase their leverage, so they would resume lending. Limits

on bank leverage could be imposed later, after the economy

has recovered. If the funds were used in this way, the

recapitalisation of the banking system could be achieved with

less than $500bn of public funds.

A revised emergency legislation could also provide more

help to homeowners. It could require the Treasury to provide

cheap financing for mortgage securities whose terms have been

renegotiated, based on the Treasury's cost of borrowing.

Mortgage service companies could be prohibited from charging

fees on foreclosures, but they could expect the owners of the

securities to provide incentives for renegotiation as Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac are already doing.

Banks deemed to be insolvent would not be eligible for

recapitalization by the capital infusion programme, but would

be taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The FDIC would be recapitalised by $200bn as a temporary

measure. FDIC, in turn could remove the $100,000 limit on

insured deposits. A revision of the emergency legislation

along these lines would be more equitable, have a better

chance of success, and cost taxpayers less in the long run.

Chairman Frank, thank you for trying to save America's economy. I don't know anyone who could have understood the intricacies of this bill, held your own with the Bush-Cheney administration on behalf of the taxpayer and navigated Congress' political waters as skillfully as you have. If this bill passes and the markets have stabilized, it will be to your credit and perhaps, more importantly, when the taxpayer reaps the benefit of this bill, they will look back to your leadership and your legacy.

I want to say a word about that latter point. This is a good deal for the taxpayer, and let me explain why with the help of a current analysis from the staff of Barron's magazine. This is the time to be buying--when everyone else wants to sell. But the government is the only agency that can do so because we can borrow at 3 percent with no collateral requirement. There is such a gap today between today's panic prices and tomorrow's inherent value that the taxpayer is in an enviable position. But the Treasury must act as a proxy for the taxpayer. There's no alternative to that.

Now, once we start buying tranches of securities, even with a third of the money authorized by this bill, the securities markets will bounce back and, more importantly, so will the value of residential real estate. Treasury is likely to be buying mortgage debt at

an average of 65 cents on the dollar. Since Treasury borrowing is about 3 percent with no collateral requirement, we will get about $35 billion in annual interest on $250 billion or $70 billion on $500 billion from these mortgage securities because they will yield a net of about 7 to 8 percent return. I know those are just numbers but this is about numbers.

More importantly, Treasury has the luxury of time. With proper oversight and regulatory discipline, markets will be back on their feet within a year and at that time the taxpayer is likely to recoup a 25 to 30 percent nontaxable capital gain on many of these security packages, on top of the underlying maturity value.

Thank you, Mr. Frank.

More importantly, American consumers, who are the real drivers of this economy, will be back in the drivers seat, able to borrow loans on businesses, cars, college and, most importantly, their homes.

That is why we need to pass this bill now. Greed is the accelerator in a capitalist economy, but unless we're willing to tap on the regulatory brakes once in a while, the economy is going to crash. We learned that 75 years ago. Let us not repeat that mistake again. We need to put some fundamental disciplines into this market to turn us back in the right direction so that we can continue to be the most prosperous country in the world. But right now what we have to do is to steer this economy from the edge of the abyss. That's what this bill does and that's why we need to pass it today.

Mr. Speaker, greed is the accelerator that drives a capitalist economy. But unless you are willing to tap on the regulatory brakes once in awhile, you are going to crash. We learned that 75 years ago, and now we are learning it again. But now the average American household is being asked to cough up about $5,000 to bail out Wall Street. That is not fair. Nor will the plan that we are being given prove to be effective.

What we need to do is to deal with the underlying mortgages, to restructure those mortgages, rather than force the taxpayer to be buying securities that they wouldn't buy in their own good judgment. The taxpayer cannot be held holding the bag.

What we need to do is stay in session until we can get it right, until we can prove to our constituents that what we have done is responsible and fair. We cannot vote this week on a $700 billion package, when we really don't know what is responsible and fair.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina. I am embarrassed to admit that I have been periodically suggesting this provision since I was on the Banking Committee 18 years ago. It is a deceptive billing practice, and all we are asking is that the consumer know how much they will wind up paying and how long it will take them to pay it. And if they knew they would be paying much more than the original purchase, and they will be paying it for the rest of their lives, they might do the right thing. It would be the right thing for the committee to pass this kind of legislation at the next opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to voice my concern over the current situation in Kazakhstan in spite of the Kazakhstan government's pledge to reform in areas of human rights, democracy and corruption. Kazakhstan was selected to hold the Chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 2010, and thus it is required to uphold the standards of this organization in the fields stated above. So far, Kazakhstan has failed to do so.

Kazakhstan's government ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 2006; it signed the Optional Protocol to ICCPR and the Optional Protocol to the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 2007, and it has introduced some reform to the criminal justice system. In this, Kazakhstan should be applauded. However, the government has made almost no concrete progress toward implementing these pledges. As Human Rights Watch argued, ``Kazakhstan is not a country with frequent or dramatic government crackdown on freedoms and human rights. One finds rather an atmosphere of quiet, subtle repression.''

This ``subtle repression'' can be seen by the government's failure to heed the concerns of local human rights groups that have been advocating for reforms such as the review of legislation on freedom of assembly, improvements in the prison system, abolition of the death penalty, reform of the judicial system and legislation to guarantee an independent judiciary, and ensuring accountability for torture. While Kazakhstan's government is about to chair OSCE, it has resisted implementing meaningful reforms in these areas. As Dr. Andrea Berg, a Central Asia Researcher, testified to Human Rights Watch: ``The government [of Kazakhstan] has certainly created a difficult environment for the exercise and promotion of human rights that is out of line with the OSCE standards and far less than what one would expect of the leadership of an organization grounded in human right principles.''

Kazakhstan's president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has been in power since 1989. He has never been elected in a vote judged free and fair by the OSCE. Ironically, last year the OSCE described a Kazakh parliamentary poll, in which a presidential party won all the seats in the lower house, as being below the required standards. While Nazarbayev is credited for bringing stability to Kazakhstan, it has come at a price, with a weak and fragmented opposition that has called on the government to reform the election and media laws and to ease restriction on public meetings. During the most recent elections, in August 2007, opposition candidates did not win a single seat.

There is a reason for the weakness of any political opposition in Kazakhstan: Since 2002,

for a political party to come into existence, the party must have an initial conference of 1,000 persons representing two-thirds of the regions of Kazakhstan and a membership of 50,000. The OSCE, the same organization that Kazakhstan will head in the near future, denounced the restrictiveness of this law and predicted that it would have ``a chilling effect on the development of political pluralism in Kazakhstan.''

The media, a tool of the utmost importance in any democracy, has been dominated in Kazakhstan by government loyalists, while independent journalists are threatened and harassed for criticizing the president for government policies and practices. This, no doubt, has enhanced Nazarbayev's hold on power.

As for corruption, Kazakhstan regularly ranks close to the bottom internationally. In 2007, Kazakhstan was ranked 150 out of 179 countries by ``Transparency International'' league table. As a United Nations report on Kazakhstan's corruption so eloquently put it: ``Corruption undermines the democratic development, performance of State institutions, and efficient use of resources. Eventually, it undermines development of society, especially of its most vulnerable groups.''

So why should we care? Is it because Kazakhstan is an oil-rich country? Is it because of its proximity to Russia? Perhaps. We often seem to care more about the fate of any oil-rich country, or any country that delivers oil than countries in a similar plight that do not have oil. But we should also care because we claim to be a country that promotes democracy and human rights, a country that values the individual freedoms of humans, no matter where they live, no matter what natural resources they posses, and no matter what relations they have with the US. How can we lecture the world about abiding to human rights laws, anti-corruption laws, and judicial reform, when we cannot look straight at our friend's face and say: ``For the sake of your own people, for the sake of your region, you need to do better.'' And now, more than ever, before it takes the Chairmanship position of the OSCE, it must reform.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue of concern to all families, and everyone who has ever known a sick child.

The Children's Program of All-inclusive, Coordinated Care, ChiPACC, serves the needs of Medicaid-eligible children who suffer from potentially terminal illnesses or conditions. The legislation I am introducing will make ChiPACC a state option under Medicaid.

Medicaid-eligible children--like all children who suffer from potentially terminal illnesses or conditions--need comprehensive, coordinated care. Currently, nearly 30 percent of the children in the United States who have life-threatening conditions qualify for Medicaid. These children are forced into a system that will only treat them on an emergency basis, sending them home to wait until their next health emergency.

Based on the highly effective, collaborative model of care developed by Children's Hospice International, CHI, the Children's Program of All-inclusive, Coordinated Care provides each enrolled child an individualized treatment plan that includes and manages services from providers across the health care spectrum. ChiPACC's services will improve upon the often inconsistent care that is currently available to seriously ill children under Medicaid, doing so at a savings to taxpayers.

With appropriate comprehensive and coordinated services under ChiPACC, many emergency episodes can be avoided or anticipated and managed, such that children receive appropriate care in their homes instead of in hospitals, and so that even when they require

critical care they can enter the hospital through the front door instead of the emergency room, significantly reducing health care costs.

Under the traditional Medicaid model, individuals can receive only ``hospice'' services and only after their doctors give them a prognosis of 6-months to live. Children, however, are much more likely than adults to go in and out of terminal phases multiple times. No family should be forced to give up curative care for their, child in order to receive services that are predicated on accepting that their child has no more than 6 months to live. ChiPACC addresses this problem by combining medical and support services currently available in Medicaid with counseling, respite, and other care that have previously only been available as hospice services.

Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my strong opposition to the substitute amendment that this rule makes in order because it usurps D.C.'s home rule authority and imposes upon the residents of our Nation's Capital laws that they don't support and that will make them less safe.

The substitute amendment goes well beyond anything contained in the Heller decision. It leaves D.C. City Council with little authority to impose sensible regulations on deadly weapons. It will repeal requirements that guns be properly stored in the home, requirements that we know prevent the accidental deaths of hundreds of children every year. States with safe storage laws have seen substantial drops in unintentional firearm deaths compared with States without those laws. And, in fact, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to ward off an intruder or be used in self-defense.

The substitute amendment will repeal the District's ban on semi- automatic guns. Even a .50 caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle is allowed, whose manufacturer publicly advertises that it can pierce the fuselage of a jet airplane from miles away. Talk about making a mockery of our homeland security rhetoric.

And the amendment will require Virginia and Maryland to sell guns to D.C. residents, breaking with decades of Federal gun trafficking laws, forcing the Commonwealth of Virginia to allow guns to fall into the hands of the mentally unbalanced and into the hands of criminals. We have already seen this happen with Virginia Tech. How dare this Congress overturn Virginia's State laws without even consulting them.

Who does the NRA think it is? There is no reason we're debating this issue today other than to appease the NRA at the expense of public safety. The Members who would impose this unwanted law onto D.C. residents would never do this to their own constituents, but it's being done because D.C. residents can't fight back. And that's the definition of bullying. It is beneath the character of the Congress to be doing this.

And let me tell you, when you have a Presidential motorcade, you clear all the streets in other cities. But in D.C., by this law, you're going to be able to have a loaded gun in your window that poses an immediate danger to the President.

What are we thinking of? This is wrong. It needs to be defeated. It is beneath the dignity of this Congress to even bring it up, and if it passes we will live to regret it.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 8 years, our President and Vice President the founder of Bush Oil Exploration and the former CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil servicing firm, have had this country focused almost exclusively on drilling for fossil fuels, the use of oil and gas to power our economy. This administration issued 40,000 permits for drilling on public land onshore, and made 300 million acres offshore available to oil and gas companies. They still have 68 million acres of proven reserves that they are not drilling on.

But what is the focus now? Let's go after that last remaining 20 percent, even though it's the most environmentally sensitive, even though it will devastate the tourism industry and fishing industry of several states. Let's go after that. That's the answer. Forget the fact that we opposed research into solar power, cutting it by 80 percent, cutting wind power research and opposing more fuel efficient engines.

They put us in this situation, and now they want more of the same. And they're wrong.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the work of SCAN Virginia--Stop Child Abuse Now--and congratulate this fine organization for 20 years of change in children's lives.

Twenty years ago, in 1988, a group of Alexandria citizens concerned about abused and neglected children in Northern Virginia came together to plan ways to prevent child abuse. As a result, David Cleary founded Stop Child Abuse Now (SCAN) of Northern Virginia, a nonprofit organization to prevent child abuse and neglect and became affiliated with the State organization now called Prevent Child Abuse Virginia.

The first program offered at SCAN was the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program that now is the Alexandria/Arlington CASA Program. CASA now serves more children and engages up to 75 volunteers at a time to give voice to the needs and priorities of abused or neglected children, one child at a time.

SCAN works collaboratively with the Arlington and Alexandria Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts to mold a CASA Program that provides helpful information to the Juvenile Judges who make determinations on the futures of abused and neglected children, while SCAN's CASA volunteers provide an independent voice that focuses solely on the best interest of the children.

SCAN's Parent Education Program has a continuum of services that range from intensive parenting classes, weekly educational parent support groups and developmental playgroups--all offered in English and Spanish. SCAN also offers a tri-annual Parent Connection Resource Guide, a publication that gives critical information about region-wide parenting classes, support groups, playgroups and other resources available to parents in Northern Virginia.

The Allies in Prevention Coalition, which is made up of child welfare professionals from the five major Northern Virginia jurisdictions, is a central part of SCAN's Public Education Program, as is SCAN's website: www.scanva.org. SCAN's Allies in Prevention Coalition engages child and family advocates in communicating regional messages to prevent child abuse and promote children's well-being in Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I can think of no higher calling than to help children in need. Please join me in commending SCAN of Northern Virginia as it celebrates twenty years of serving children and families in Northern Virginia through programs and services that keep children safe, strengthen parenting skills and provide advocacy in the courts, legislature and the community.

Well, Madam Speaker, now we know the truth, that the television ad that the Republican Presidential candidate is using to impugn the patriotism of his Democratic opponent is a complete fabrication. So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when the same camp is trying to convince the American people that offshore oil drilling is going to reduce the price of gas. Sure, it will--in more than a decade, by two to four cents. In fact, the Bush/Cheney administration's own Energy Information Administration has said that ending the Federal moratorium ``is certainly not going to make a difference in the next 10 years.''

In fact, the Big Oil companies already have access to more than 34 billion barrels of offshore oil they're not even drilling. All it's going to do is give more profits to these oil companies by being able to have publicly-owned reserves on their balance sheets, increasing the value of the oil shares.

The fact is, though, that lies and half truths say far more about the people uttering them than the people who are targeted by them.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments achieved by the MITRE Corporation throughout its 50 years of service to our Nation. MITRE has always been one of the leading research corporations dedicated to tackling the difficult technological issues for the Department of Defense.

MITRE was born in the Lincoln Laboratories of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in July 1958 as a non-profit company designed to provide research for America's air defense systems. 50 years later, MITRE thrives as a defense-oriented Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) that provides cutting edge systems including enterprise-wide control, communications, computer, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to the Department.

By providing advanced information technology and engineering systems, MITRE contributes to various areas vital to our Nation's defense. MITRE is known for its leading role in many successful defense systems that secure our Nation from attack, including the SemiAutomatic Ground Environment (SAGE), the Cheyenne Mountain and the NORAD complex, Ballistic Missile Early Warning System

(BMEWS), Joint STARS Aircraft and the Joint Tactical Information and Distribution System.

The women and men of MITRE provide their sophisticated skills through times of grave conflict. MITRE personnel have been deployed in the combat zones in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and on September 11, 2001, MITRE teams rushed to Ground Zero in New York minutes after the attacks to offer crucial assistance. The 6,000 professionals employed at MITRE are the essence of this company, dedicating their services whenever and wherever at a moment's notice.

Madam Speaker, I commend MITRE Corporation on its 50 year milestone of services. It is an innovative corporation that channels all of its resources to the defense of our Nation. I wish them great success in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution that recognizes the actions of Chinese individuals and non- governmental organizations that have brought relief to victims of the Sichuan earthquake. The resolution also recognizes and encourages a potential new era of openness by the Chinese Government.

Following the tragic earthquake in Sichuan Province on May 20, we have heard and read accounts describing the generous response of thousands of individuals and hundreds of NGOs who have raised money, delivered food and tents, and provided direct hands-on assistance to the survivors. Foreign journalists and China's new generation of media have been granted unprecedented access into the earthquake stricken areas and reported on the quake with an intensity and professionalism once thought impossible.

Contrast what has happened in China today with what happened following the Great Tangshan earthquake of 1976. The Chinese Government blocked foreign access and even tried to hide from its own citizens the tragedy that took the loss of more than 250,000 lives.

There are many human rights concerns in China I share with my colleagues. Notwithstanding these concerns, we need to recognize and encourage actions that bring about positive change and plant the seeds of a better civil society. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, you know, when you listen to the Bush White House and our Republican friends, you really do get the impression that this is a government of, by, and for the oil companies. And in fact, maybe it is. I mean, after all, President Bush was the founder of Bush Oil Exploration. He was a paid board member of several oil exploration companies. Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. He's made millions off Halliburton stock while he's been in office.

Newsweek, in fact, at the beginning of the Bush administration, identified 11 key decision makers in the energy policy area that had worked for or lobbied for the energy industry. And in fact when Vice President Cheney put together his energy transition team, 50 members were from the big corporate energy companies. None was from renewable energy organizations. Maybe that's why the Bush administration has cut renewable energy programs by 27 percent, including a 54 percent cut in solar energy.

There are many reasons why we're in this situation, Mr. Speaker, and one big reason is the background and the priorities of the President and Vice President.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the centennial of James Madison University.

Established in Harrisonburg, Virginia, by the Virginia General Assembly in 1908 as the State Normal and Industrial School for Women, the school's first student body was made up of 209 students and 15 faculty members. In 1938, its name was changed to Madison College in honor of the fourth President of the United States, James Madison. In 1966, the university became a coeducational institution, and in 1976, the university's name was changed to James Madison University. Today, the university enrolls nearly 17,000 students and employs 3,000 full- time and part-time faculty and staff.

In addition to its expansion in physical size dramatic and student enrollment, JMU has experienced dramatic growth in academic prestige and popularity over the past 20 years. For the 13th consecutive year and 17th time, James Madison University ranked as the top public, master's-level university in the South in the highly regarded annual survey on academic quality conducted by U.S. News & World Report. JMU also had the highest graduation rate--80 percent--among both public and private colleges in the South. Last spring, a record 16,050 students applied for 3,300 spots in the 2007-2008 freshman class.

James Madison University is also notable for encouraging its students to engage in the global community. According to the Institute of International Education, JMU ranks second nationally among master's- level institutions for the total number of students studying abroad. With 65 of its alumni serving as Peace Corps volunteers in developing countries, JMU also ranks second in the nation among medium-sized colleges and universities for graduates currently serving as volunteers with the U.S. service program.

Over the past 100 years, James Madison University has grown from a small technical college for women into a thriving academic institution that exemplifies the full promise of a public university. Throughout its growth, JMU has maintained its core mission of providing a terrific education and producing well-rounded alumni prepared to contribute to society, while at the same time fostering an inclusive and high- spirited atmosphere that complements its beautiful location in the Shenandoah Valley.

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to have James Madison University in the State of Virginia and to recognize its 100 years of achievement. I ask all my colleagues to support this resolution and to congratulate the impressive achievements of James Madison University.