Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations bills. This bill begins to correct key deficits in biomedical research, elementary and secondary education, job training, and health care for veterans and civilians alike, and sets out a clear, sustainable vision for the future. I want to thank and congratulate Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Walsh, the Conferees and their staff for putting together such an excellent bill, one which will bring needed relief to so many of our constituents.

The President, of course, has vowed to veto this bill, because he believes it costs too much, that we can't afford to make these investments in cancer research, in Head Start, in economic development. Meanwhile, the President is asking us to spend an additional $200 billion this year alone in his misguided war in Iraq. $9.8 billion, the amount by which this bill exceeds the President's request, would pay for approximately 1 month of that war. Instead, this bill would use that money to help States provide health coverage to people with pre- existing conditions, help college-ready low-income students afford higher education, and help low-income individuals and their families keep their homes warm in the wintertime--a winter-time that could well feature oil at costs in excess of $100 a barrel.

The President says we can't afford to make these investments; I believe we can't afford not to. These are investments which pay dividends over time, investments which will keep America strong, competitive and healthy.

While I strongly support this Conference Report, I would be remiss if I didn't express my concern that this bill includes a $27.8 million increase for abstinence education programs, which research has shown to be ineffective, and worse, often medically inaccurate. Since 2001, we have spent more than $1 billion on these programs, some of which tell our children that using condoms is ``like Russian Roulette,'' and that HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact.

Madam Speaker, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are serious problems that demand serious solutions. Of course we should want to delay the onset of sexual activity in our children--what parent of a teenager wouldn't want that? But we cannot let that desire blind us to the very real fact that teenagers, despite our best intentions, will and do have sex, and that our wanting them not to does not absolve us of our obligation to protect them and keep them safe.

This money does not exist merely on paper--it is real money which we are borrowing from countries whose interests are inimical to our own, countries that have accumulated sovereign wealth funds at alarming rates over the past 6 years. And we are leaving this legacy of fiscal wreckage to our children, and our children's children, mortgaging away their future at a rate of more than $15,000 per second.

Since 2001, China's accumulation of foreign reserves, mostly U.S. dollars, have increased from $46.6 billion to $1.066 trillion--that is, every new dollar we borrow adds leverage to China--which has profoundly different strategic aims than we do.

The idea that this is a preferable alternative to a bill that would help 95 percent of the people who felt any impact from its passage is unconscionable. The idea that we should sacrifice the futures of our children and our grandchildren in order to have our cake and eat it too, to continue giving enormous tax preferences to the richest of the rich in this country is morally bankrupt and fiscally unsound.

Madam Speaker, income is income. Even if we accept that there should be a distinction between the taxation of labor and capital income, income received as payment for the service of investing other people's money is not capital income under even the loosest of possible understandings. The idea that a hedge fund manager earning $500 million a year should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, who earns $40,000 a year is preposterous in both moral and economic terms and should embarrass us all. I know it embarrasses me, and that it embarrasses my constituents.

This bill is about making a choice between what is right and what is easy. I applaud Chairman Rangel for standing firm in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the easy thing, for drawing a line in the sand and demanding that we pass a bill which is true to our principles. We were not elected to make easy choices--we were elected to do right by our constituents, their children, and their children's children. I am proud to support this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, today I, along with my colleagues John Duncan Jr., Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Michael Capuano, and Jim Matheson are introducing a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that staff-led tours of the United States Capitol should be preserved.

Staff-led tours are a long standing tradition and can be documented as far back as 40 years ago. I suspect they date back even earlier, and perhaps existed when the Capitol was first constructed when Congressmen had constituents or friends visit the Capitol and their staff would take them to view the magnificence of the Capitol when the Member was not available. Senate Historian Richard Baker asserts that staff-led tours have always existed. Regardless of exactly when staff-led tours began, it has become an honored and well-worn custom.

While there is no chronicle of when staff-led tours first began, tours given by professional staff, known as the Capitol Guide Service were established in 1876. Upon establishment of the Capitol Guide Service, there was a 25 cent fee for getting a guided tour of the Capitol. Tom Nottingham, a well known member of the Capitol Preservation Society was an outspoken activist against the fee and advocated for a free and open Capitol. Finally in 1971, through the Legislative Reorganization Act, tours of the Capitol were offered free of charge.

Since that date, visitors have been able to visit their Member offices prior to going to the Capitol. Members or someone from their personal staff often accompany these visitors to the Capitol. It is important to note that the Capitol Guide Service has existed for over 100 years now and they have co-existed with staff-led tours without any controversy or incident.

As a Representative of a congressional district in close proximity to the United States Capitol, not only do my constituents come and visit the Capitol, but also friends and family of my constituents often join in these special tours conducted by my staff. As most Members will affirm, it is a joy to have all these visitors come and see for the first time the U.S. Capitol.

Recently, a constituent contacted my office requesting a Capitol tour. On our way through the Cannon Tunnel to see the artwork on display from the Congressional Art Competition, it turned out that her nephew, whom she had never met, had his drawing on display at the Cannon Tunnel. She was able to connect with her nephew and family through the ability to receive a personalized tour through my office. Had this option not been available, she would have had a hard time getting a personalized tour, and would not have been able to stop and get a good look at her nephew's award-winning artwork.

Also, observing constituent's State statue has become one of the hallmarks of staff-led tours. Perhaps one of the greatest examples is the statue of King Kamehameha the Great, one of the most impressive statues in Statuary Hall and one that brings much pride to visiting Hawaiians. Tours conducted through the Capitol Guide Service average around 40 people per tour and it is very difficult for professional staff to accommodate personal requests. We have an obligation to provide constituent services here in the House of Representatives and at our respective districts. Anecdotes of memorable tours can be recalled by all Members and by staff who have led a tour of the Capitol. The honor and privilege of providing this service to our constituents is not something that should be compromised.

I understand but disagree with the concerns of those that might want to do away with staff-led tours. Since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the Capitol Police increased security. Since the attacks of September 11th, the security of the Capitol was increased further. Even with all these security improvements, we have managed to preserve the right of our constituents to continue touring the Capitol with congressional staff. We cannot and should not let fear of the uncertain end this time honored tradition.

The resolution we introduce today recognizes the sentiment of many of us in Congress that staff-led tours are a long established tradition in the Capitol and an important part of constituent services. Staff-led Capitol tours must continue and the opening of the Capitol Visitor's Center should not change this policy. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution calling for the preservation of staff-led tours.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007. This bill will bring relief to tens of millions of hardworking American families, including nearly 100,000 in my district alone.

It makes responsible, sensible changes to the tax code to make it more efficient and more equitable, changes that are sound both morally and economically. Most importantly, H.R. 3996 will be the first tax relief bill of this millennium that did not increase the deficit.

This bill would lower the tax burden on 95 percent of the people affected by it--which is about as close to perfect as we're able to get with the tax code. I'd like to commend Chairman Rangel and his staff for their work on this excellent bill, which I am proud to support today.

Mr. Speaker, we are at something of an impasse. The President's budget assumes the revenue next year from a vast expansion of the AMT, and the President has offered no alternative to either eliminate the AMT or patch it, likely in recognition of the immense cost to the treasury. Yet nearly everyone agrees that we must pass some form of AMT relief this year and that we must do it soon. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation have spelled out specifically what the cost of a one-year AMT patch would be. It cannot, whatever tooth fairies we might wish to believe in, be accomplished for free.

What we seem to disagree on is how to reconcile these two truths. We don't have many choices, Mr. Speaker, and other Members are correct in pointing out that many of them are difficult. The consequences of choosing wrong, however, are far too drastic for us to avoid confronting the problem head on.

If we are to pass an AMT ``patch,'' we can do one of three things: we can cut benefits in Social Security and Medicare to comply with Pay-Go, we can raise additional revenue to comply with Pay-Go, or we can waive Pay-Go and continue financing tax cuts by increasing the federal deficit and the national debt. That is, we can just irresponsibly pass the buck to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be possible for me to oppose waiving Pay-Go in sufficiently strong terms. As the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, told us yesterday, this Administration has increased U.S. government debt by an average of $15,644.93 per second since they took office.

Pretending that sexual activity among teenagers does not exist will not reduce the number of new sexually transmitted infections; it will not reduce the number of teenage girls who become pregnant; and it will not reduce the number of abortions performed every year.

I want to thank Chairman Obey for including language in this Conference Report to ensure that programs will not be funded that are medically inaccurate. I hope that in the future, we can continue to work together to ensure that our children receive high quality, science-based, age-appropriate sex education that is medically sound and free from ideological or religious bias. Despite my concerns about this program, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this important bill and urge my colleagues to do the same, so that we can get needed funds to these critical programs as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring relief to tens of millions of hard-working American families, including nearly 100,000 in my district alone.

It makes the tax code more efficient and more equitable, changes that are sound both morally and economically. Most importantly, H.R. 3996 will be the first tax relief bill of this millennium that did not increase the deficit.

This will would lower the tax burden on 95 percent of the people affected by it--which is about as close to perfect as we're able to get with the tax code. I'd like to commend Chairman Rangel and Mr. Neal and their staff for their work on this excellent bill, which I am proud to support today.

Mr. Speaker, the President's budget assumes the revenue next year from a vast expansion of the AMT, and the President has offered no alternative to either eliminate the AMT or patch it, likely in recognition of the immense cost to the Treasury. Yet nearly everyone agrees that we must pass some form of AMT relief this year, and that we must do it soon. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation have spelled out specifically what the cost of a 1-year AMT patch would be. It cannot be accomplished for free.

If we are to pass an AMT ``patch,'' we can do one of three things: we can cut benefits in Social Security and Medicare to comply with PAYGO, we can raise additional revenue to comply with PAYGO, or we can waive PAYGO as the Republican party has done for the last 7 years and continue financing tax cuts by increasing the Federal deficit and the national debt. That is, we can continue to irresponsibly pass the buck to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, told us yesterday, this administration has increased U.S. Government debt by an average of $15,644.93 per second since they took office.

This money does not exist merely on paper; it is real money, which we are borrowing from countries whose interests are contrary to our own, countries like China that have accumulated sovereign wealth funds at alarming rates over the past 6 years. And we are leaving this legacy of fiscal wreckage to our children, and our children's children, mortgaging away their future at a rate of more than $15,000 per second.

Since 2001, China's accumulation of foreign reserves, mostly U.S. dollars, have increased from $46.6 billion to $1.066 trillion--that is, every new dollar we borrow makes us ever more dependent on China--which has profoundly different strategic aims than we do.

The idea that we should not pay for this AMT fix is unconscionable. The idea that we should sacrifice the futures of our children and our grandchildren in order to have our cake and eat it too, to continue giving enormous tax preferences to the richest of the rich in this country is morally bankrupt and fiscally unsound.

Mr. Speaker, even if we accept that there should be a distinction between the taxation of labor and capital income, income received as payment for the service of investing other people's money is not capital income under even the loosest of possible understandings. The idea that a hedge fund manager earning $500 million a year should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, who earns $40,000 a year is preposterous in both moral and economic terms and should embarrass us all.

This bill is about making a choice between what is right and what is easy. I applaud Chairman Rangel for standing firm in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the easy thing, for demanding that we pass a bill which is true to our principles. We were not elected to make easy choices--we were elected to do right by our constituents, their children, and their children's children. I am proud to support this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, today I, along with my colleague John Culberson, are introducing the ``Civil War Artifact Authenticity Act'' that will curb the proliferation of fraudulent Civil War artifacts and memorabilia entering the legitimate market place.

Since the last shot fired in America's Civil War, countless numbers of people across the Nation have become fascinated with this monumental conflict. From the battlefields of Virginia and Louisiana's Red River to the hallowed ground of Antietam, Gettysburg, and thousands of other places that saw brother fighting brother, this war touched virtually every part of this country and every home and hearth. More than 600,000 combatants died from battle, disease, and imprisonment.

With the war's end, soldiers who fought in that conflict returned frequently, often with families in tow, to the places of the most stirring moments of their lives. They revered the fields on which they fought and established numerous associations, North and South, commemorating those who served. These veterans created strong links to their service and sacrifice, through their memoirs and other writings and the personal items and artifacts they carried on the battlefield and brought home to rest in conspicuous places on the mantles of their homes in recognition of the soldiers' service and sacrifice.

Over the ensuing decades, as the soldiers and families who owned and cared for these artifacts died away, many of these heirlooms began to scatter, particularly as later generations forgot the importance of these historic belongings, failed to care for them, or sold the items to augment their incomes.

With the arrival of the 100th anniversary of the Civil War, and the deaths of the last Union and Confederate soldier, respectively, in 1956 and 1961, people began to consider the importance of these relics, personal items, letters, diaries, and other memorabilia that the soldiers took home. Scholars and researchers, collectors, museum curators, and others who knew the historic importance of these artifacts have renewed the connections to the conflict and have sought to protect and preserve the Civil War's tangible heritage that the soldiers cherished. From the day the guns fell silent up until this moment, these artifacts and other memorabilia have helped us define and understand our Civil War.

The personal artifacts of the Civil War have spawned a large and growing interest in the Civil War. Probably more books and articles have been written about the war than any other era in our history. Researchers, writers, curators, and many average Americans have felt the need to own, study and preserve what that long-gone generation once owned. These artifacts which now populate the homes, shops, museums, schools and any number of other venues have great meaning for many of us today. As a result, entrepreneurs have opened commercial establishments to trade these relics in honest commercial enterprise.

The fascination with the Civil War has grown a new generation of sellers and collectors. Original artifacts and memorabilia have skyrocketed in value among collectors and others. A ``belt plate,'' which most people know as a buckle, sold for $5 in 1960, and now cost as much as $200 to a $1000 depending on the particular item. Sadly, unscrupulous people have opened new markets in fraudulent items that never saw the Civil War.

As a result, the entry of fake items into the market for relics and artifacts not only cheats people financially, but also disrupts historical scholarship and the legitimate display in museums and other venues. Internet trade makes it easier for people to sell fake items to unschooled and unwary buyers because the con artists are unknown, many working overseas to flood the market with costly junk. To protect the true artifacts of the Civil War era, I propose new legislation designed to interfere with the manufacture and sale of fraudulent items, and increasing the awareness among sellers and buyers of the large trade in these fake items.

Our bill would add a second title to existing Federal law, the ``Hobby Protection Act,'' which requires that fake political items and memorabilia, and numismatic items must have the words ``copy'' or ``facsimile'' clearly stamped on them to ensure that they are recognized as replicas or non-authentic items. Because original Civil War artifacts and memorabilia are highly prized and can reach into the thousands of dollars depending on the particular item, those determined to make a dishonest dollar, can easily replicate an original item, or worse, produce an item that is a pure fantasy piece--an artifact that never existed during the Civil War.

While this legislation will not end the trafficking in fake Civil War items, it will provide sanctions through the Federal Trade Commission for manufacturers who purport to offer authentic Civil War relics and artifacts, when they are in fact fake junk.

This legislation is essential if we want to ensure these artifacts and memorabilia of the Civil War era retain their historic importance for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Civil War Artifact Authenticity Act.''

Madam Chairman, the function of this Congress is to answer the question: Who are we? And one of the most defining characteristics of who we are is that we are a meritocracy. That is the reason why we are as strong and as wealthy and as influential as we are all over the globe. People come from all parts of the globe to America because they know that they will be judged here on the basis of their goodness as a member of society and their ability as a contributor to our economy. That's all this legislation does.

The people that it is directed to have no more control over their sexual orientation than the color of their skin. All we are saying is that you will be judged on your ability to contribute, not on any other artificial distinction.

As a sponsor of ENDA, I would have favored the further amendment by Congresswoman Baldwin, but the fact is that this is a civil rights struggle, and struggles take time. But this measure today is a powerful sign of enlightenment and progressive change in America. It is defining legislation. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time and rise in support of H.R. 3688, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Peru has been a longstanding ally in the region with the war against illegal narcotics and has committed to opening its markets and providing American businesses, farmers, ranchers and workers the opportunity to establish economical ties in that country.

Because of globalization and the benefits of growing business, cultural, and technological connectivity, Peru has become one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America with an 8 percent GDP growth in 2006. Our two-way trade with Peru has doubled over the last three years reaching $8.8 billion in 2006, with U.S. exports reaching $2.9 billion. However, because of the most-favored nation tariff rates and the various preference programs, including the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized System of Preferences, 98 percent of Peru's exports enter the U.S. duty free.

While Peru's number one source of imports comes from the United States, U.S. products are subject to tariffs as high as 20 percent. With this agreement, the playing field will even out for U.S. businesses and move us from a one sided agreement to a full partnership. Once this agreement enters into force, 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial products will enter Peru duty free, while remaining tariffs phase out over ten years.

Like our past free trade agreements, Peru will prove to be beneficial to the U.S. economy. In the last 3 years, we have entered into several Free Trade Agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, Oman, and several Central American nations and the Dominican Republic under CAFTA. And the results of these agreements have proven to be beneficial to the U.S. economy, businesses, and workers alike.

Three years after the U.S.-Chile FTA entered into force, our exports more than doubled reaching nearly $7 billion last year. Likewise, our exports to Singapore nearly quintupled over the first three years also reaching $7 billion. In 2006, one year after implementing the CAFTA-DR FTA, the United States exported $19.6 billion worth of goods, up 16% from the previous year. In 2005, almost 4,000 companies exported goods from Virginia of which 82 percent were small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with fewer than 500 employees.

But free trade agreements are more then just buying or selling products. They are also about adhering to sets of rules such as respect for intellectual property rights and with this agreement enforcement of international labor and environmental protections.

A free trade agreement with Peru will establish greater protection for Intellectual Property rights, a growing concern for U.S. businesses and a particular concern for the N. VA technology community. It is estimated that intellectual property piracy costs the U.S. economy between $200 and $250 billion per year in lost sales and is responsible for the loss of 750,000 jobs. This agreement will improve standards for defending intellectual property by including state-of-the-art protections for digital products such as U.S. software, music, text, and video.

Peru is the first free trade agreement that includes fully enforceable commitments to adopt and maintain fundamental labor rights as stated in the International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work. This agreement will also include critical provisions emphasizing our commitment to our environmental values by addressing the impacts of illegal logging and establishing specific and enforceable requirements to prevent the trade in illegally sourced timber.

Finally, this agreement will emphasize U.S. support for a country that values democracy,

economic freedom and growth. Trade with Peru will continue to significantly increase opportunities for economic growth and help Peru further develop and modernize its economy. Recently, Peru has experienced a decline in their poverty rate from 54.3 percent in 2001 to 49.5 percent in 2006.

As a friend of trade and of Peru, it is essential we continue to cultivate this partnership so our two nations can continue to prosper and be competitive in this growing global economy. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations bills. This bill begins to correct key deficits in biomedical research, elementary and secondary education, job training, and health care for veterans and civilians alike, and sets out a clear, sustainable vision for the future. I want to thank and congratulate Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Walsh, the Conferees and their staff for putting together such an excellent bill, one which will bring needed relief to so many of our constituents.

The President, of course, has vowed to veto this bill, because he believes it costs too much, that we can't afford to make these investments in cancer research, in Head Start, in economic development. Meanwhile, the President is asking us to spend an additional $200 billion this year alone in his misguided war in Iraq. The amount by which this bill exceeds the President's request, $9.8 billion, would pay for approximately 1 month of that war. Instead, this bill would use that money to help States provide health coverage to people with pre- existing conditions, help college-ready low-income students afford higher education, and help low-income individuals and their families keep their homes warm in the wintertime--a wintertime that could well feature oil at costs in excess of $100 a barrel.

The President says we can't afford to make these investments; I believe we can't afford not to. These are investments which pay dividends over time, investments which will keep America strong, competitive, and healthy. While I strongly support this Conference Report, I would be remiss if I didn't express my concern that this bill includes a $27.8 million increase for abstinence education programs, which research has shown to be ineffective, and worse, often medically inaccurate. Since 2001, we have spent more than $1 billion on these programs, some of which tell our children that using condoms is ``like Russian Roulette,'' and that HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through skin- to-skin contact.

Madam Speaker, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are serious problems that demand serious solutions. Of course we should want to delay the onset of sexual activity in our children--what parent of a teenager wouldn't want that? But we cannot let that desire blind us to the very real fact that teenagers, despite our best intentions, will and do have sex, and that our wanting them not to does not absolve us of our obligation to protect them and keep them safe.

Pretending that sexual activity among teenagers does not exist will not reduce the number of new sexually transmitted infections; it will not reduce the number of teenage girls who become pregnant; and it will not reduce the number of abortions performed every year.

I want to thank Chairman Obey for including language in this Conference Report to ensure that programs will not be funded that are medically inaccurate. I hope that in the future, we can continue to work together to ensure that our children receive high quality, science-based, age-appropriate sex education that is medically sound and free from ideological or religious bias. Despite my concerns about this program, Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this important bill and urge my colleagues to do the same, so that we can get needed funds to these critical programs as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, as President Bush allows the war in Iraq to drag on, with no change in policy and no end in sight, it is important that we hear what our combat soldiers are saying on the front lines of that war. Over the weekend, The Washington Post published a story on the First Infantry Division of the First Battalion, which has been patrolling the streets of Baghdad for the last 14 months. Those troops are tired, bitter and skeptical. One such soldier told the reporter, and I am quoting, ``I don't think this place is worth another soldiers' life.''

Our soldiers are also frustrated that decisionmakers here in Washington don't fully realize what is going on. Quoting another soldier: ``They just know back there what the higher-ups tell them. But the higher-ups don't go anywhere, and actually they only go to the safe places with a little bit of gunfire. They don't see what we see on the ground.'' Having been to Iraq a number of times, as many of my colleagues have, how true that is.

Madam Speaker, none of us in this Chamber can imagine what our soldiers go through on a daily basis in Iraq, but the White House needs to start listening to them. It is well past time to bring our sons and daughters home from this fiasco we call the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the McCrery substitute and in support of the Rangel-Levin-McDermott underlying bill.

As we continue to expand and open our markets to new competition, we have an economic and a moral responsibility to ensure that our domestic workers are equipped with the necessary skills and tools to compete in a global market.

I support free trade, which is all the more reason to support the reforms and expansion of a program that will help our workers adversely affected by trade and the globalization of our economy. It is estimated that more than 3 million service workers' jobs will go overseas by 2015, so the expansion of coverage to the service workers section is especially important and appropriate.

But the McCrery substitute will limit trade assistance adjustment by not offering any support to service or public sector workers. The substitute will also set a cap on available training funds, denying many workers the tools and resources to be more competitive in the global economy. And as I read the language of the substitute, for the first time of the 70-year history of the unemployment insurance system, the substitute would allow States to deny unemployment insurance benefits to dislocated workers. The underlying bill provides American workers with the support and tools needed to expand job training opportunities and transition workers into 21st century jobs.

This bill, H.R. 2930, triples the current job training cap to $660 million by 2010 and increases the health care premium subsidy to 85 percent. This is an important investment in the American workforce to enable Americans to remain competitive in the global economy.

So I ask my colleagues to vote against the Republican substitute and vote for H.R. 2930, the McDermott-Rangel-Levin bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I appreciate the membership on both sides of the committee for finding an agreement on so many issues that are important to small businesses.

They know that small businesses must overcome long odds and difficult obstacles in navigating the waters of Federal contracting. Size thresholds, growth requirements, endless paperwork and late contracts payments are all part of the challenges that competing small businesses regularly face.

Yet there is another challenge that has been brought to my attention. Some small businesses, after being awarded a competitively bid contract, must face frivolous protests by the incumbent contractors just for the purposes of delaying the award of a contract. For an incumbent contractor, there is an economic incentive to protest an award, even if there is no substance to the challenge. The award to the small business is thus delayed, and the current contract is retained until the protest is concluded. It can take months or even years before the dispute is resolved by the government.

In the meantime, the incumbent contractor can reap millions more for the extended contract that they had been granted previously but lost out on. These protests have serious consequences for many small businesses. During protests, the small businesses must cover their legal costs. Moreover, they must cover payroll and administrative costs for the workforce that they hired for the awarding contract. That's before they ever get paid by the Federal Government. These costs can cripple some small businesses that run on tight budgets without built- in overhead for the costly protests.

In other words, it's an uneven playing field.

This amendment will require the Small Business Administration to study the degree to which incumbent contractors are submitting frivolous protests to extend the length of current contracts. It's a problem I know exists because many of my constituent companies have, in fact, experienced it firsthand.

The Small Business Administration's study will determine the number and the merit of GAO and SBA protests that are filed by incumbent contractors and analyze the number of extended contracts. It'll analyze the

extra costs of extending contracts, including the costs to small businesses that won the initial award of those contracts, and the costs incurred by Federal agencies as a result.

Finally, it will develop recommendations to ease the financial burden on small businesses during protests and offer recommendations to discourage frivolous protests made to squeeze small businesses.

It's clear that not all incumbent contractors submit frivolous bids. But it's also equally clear that there are some built-in incentives for incumbents to submit protests that they know have little merit but, nevertheless, will enable them to profit by the delay.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment so that small businesses can cope with frivolous incumbents' protests, and I look forward to working with the Small Business Committee on this ongoing issue of fairness.

I will retain whatever time is left.

I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time. I do want to thank Heath Bumgardner of my staff for doing the work on this. And I've enjoyed working with the Small Business Committee and their staff on both sides of the aisle.

I thank Mr. Royce for bringing up this issue.

Mr. Speaker, it's terribly important, it's all about man's inhumanity to mankind. Here China envisions itself becoming a superpower in the 21st century, hosting the world's Olympics.

We, in the United States, are buying tens of billions of dollars of goods from China. China has the opportunity to take its place among the nations of the world that matter, that do the right thing, that lead us into the future. What a terrific opportunity for China to show that it has a moral fiber, that it knows right from wrong, that it is not an amoral totalitarian state.

It knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the horrific conditions within which the North Korean people exist today, barely surviving. Yet, out of total desperation, when they are able to escape North Korea, do the Chinese help? No. They make it worse. It's as though they have escaped from some purgatory into hell where they get beaten up by the Chinese and then sent back to North Korea, probably to be executed.

This is a situation that just cries out for people around the world to speak up. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Royce has given us that opportunity in the House of Representatives today.

I thank my friend and colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this resolution is to recognize the outstanding work of the school, community and faith-based advocacy groups who, through their moral commitment and tireless efforts and countless hours of volunteer service, have helped bring needed attention to the genocide occurring in Darfur. Their efforts reflect the true spirit of Americans and bring hope to those who are facing historic atrocities halfway around the world.

I want to particularly commend the students who are fueling this nationwide movement, urging action to stop genocide by educating their peers and holding us, their elected officials, accountable.

And hold us accountable they have. I recently met with students from an organization whose primary goal is to form a nationwide anti- genocide coalition. This organization has more than 700 chapters, provides students with creative and effective organizing materials and policy and advocacy training. Recently, in my home State of Virginia, several outstanding students from the New School of Virginia held a 3- day conference where they educated fellow students about the genocide in Darfur.

I was so moved by their sincere and energetic commitment to ending that genocide, I invited the students to Congress, where they were led by Semhar Araia and Lia Parada of my staff. These high school students briefed Members of Congress on their efforts to put pressure on the Government of Sudan to stop the genocide. Having given their peers numerous briefings on the situation in Darfur, these students took it upon themselves to ask poignant, pressing questions of our colleagues. Their message was clear: help us save Darfur.

Having learned that villages have been razed, women systematically raped and branded, men murdered, and food and water supplies destroyed, they are determined to make a difference, and to continue speaking up until their government does the right thing.

Now, we hear slogans from our President like, ``not on our watch,'' and we believe that he is sincere when he says that. But our society continues to be witness to a crisis as devastating as Rwanda. Our youth can't understand why it continues today, after years of knowing what has been going on, tens of thousands have died, hundreds of thousands are displaced and living in refugee camps. More than 2 million people have been driven from their homes.

And over the last few years, we've seen major changes in U.S. foreign policy with respect to the ongoing crisis in Darfur, but a far more aggressive response is still needed.

On July 22 of 2004, Congress declared that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur constituted genocide. On September 9 of that year, former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that ``genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the janjaweed bear responsibility.''

On April 18 of this year, President George Bush asserted that the United States has a moral obligation to help end the genocide in Darfur. But it still goes on.

Had it not been for the grass-roots effort to pressure the administration and other national governments on this humanitarian crisis, I doubt we would see the United Nations African Union peacekeepers in Darfur.

But we have got to do so much more. The mission is not complete. Just last month, on September 29, an estimated 1,000 members of a heavily armed Darfur rebel group overran a base in Haskanita, which is occupied by the African Union Mission. This ambush resulted in intense fighting that killed 10 peacekeepers and wounded many others; 50 soldiers are still missing. According to U.N. estimates, in the aftermath of the brutal attack, 15,000 civilians had to flee the area to neighboring towns or the wilderness.

The effort and resources put into resolving this conflict pale compared to what the President has requested for Iraq. Clearly, there's so much more that we as a Nation could be doing to end this crisis. The humanitarian situation is not improving. African Union peacekeeping forces are limited to only 7,000 troops. As evidenced by the attack on Haskanita, it is unlikely that their efforts alone will ensure any real meaningful progress. We've got to keep

pressuring the Sudanese Government and build support for a larger peacekeeping force. More Americans need to speak out day in, day out, like these students are. We cannot continue to allow the raping, the massacreing, the displacement of people to continue. These students are asking us to hear them, to act, and to bring to bear the strength of the nations of the world to address this conflict.

That's why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution that recognizes those who have selflessly devoted themselves to raising awareness of the crisis in Darfur.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Representative Tom Davis, my distinguished colleague from Virginia, to recognize the accomplishments of Alvin W. Smuzynski Jr., upon his retirement as President and Chief Executive Officer of Wesley Housing Development Corporation of Northern Virginia.

Dedicated to increasing affordable housing in Northern Virginia, Mr. Smuzynski served as Commissioner on the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and as a Board member, Board Chairman, and President and CEO of Wesley Housing. Having spent nearly three decades expanding affordable housing, making rental properties available to low and moderate-income families in the metropolitan area was always at the top of Mr. Smuzynski's agenda.

Mr. Smuzynski led Wesley Housing admirably; he was a pioneer dedicated to ensuring that entire communities throughout Northern Virginia would have the opportunity to acquire decent, affordable housing. During his tenure as President and CEO, more than half of the organization's 1,267 units were built or acquired. Under his leadership, Wesley Housing achieved the Housing Association of Nonprofit Developers' (HAND) 2006 Developer of the Year Award and Leadership Fairfax's Regional Leadership Award.

In 1999, under the direction of Mr. Smuzynski, the Wesley Agape House was completed. This 12-unit apartment house for individuals and children living with HIV/AIDS was the first project of this type in Northern Virginia. His advocacy efforts were essential to establishing a non-competitive tax credit pool for preservation projects in Northern Virginia. In 2005, his work with the Washington Metro Bankers' Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance resulted in the establishment of Fairfax County's innovative ``Penny for Housing Fund.'' The trust fund supports preservation and development of affordable housing.

Always looking to lead the way, Mr. Smuzynski forged ahead on innovative projects. He built Northern Virginia's only barrier-free apartment community for low-income, severely physically disabled individuals--the 22-unit Coppermine Place I in Herndon. This award winning apartment community was selected as HAND's 2007 Best Project in Northern Virginia and the Accessible Design Award by the Coalition for Housing Opportunities In the Community for Everyone, Inc. (CHOICE) award.

Truly, Mr. Smuzynski's career has left behind a legacy of perseverance, innovation and numerous successes. He has earned the reputation over the years of being the leader in providing affordable housing, and will long be remembered for his dedication and commitment to Virginians. I wish all the best to him and his family in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Truly, we face a health care crisis in this country--in the richest country on Earth, 46 million Americans do not have health insurance, including 9 million children. Today's bipartisan, bicameral compromise is not a perfect solution to that problem but is a decisive, strong step towards covering uninsured kids and fulfilling our moral obligation to our children.

In my home state of Virginia, the CHIP program currently provides coverage to 137,642 low-income children each year; 171,642 children in Virginia remain uninsured, and the CHIP Reauthorization Act will help us cover 74,200 of these children. The CHIP Reauthorization Act will ensure that these children have access to high quality health care, including the preventative services that children need to be healthy and successful in school and later in life. This bill will provide dental and mental health benefits on par with medical and surgical services--truly ensuring that the whole child's health is provided for.

The CHIP Reauthorization Act does this without increasing the deficit, by increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes. In my view as chairman of the Congressional Prevention Caucus, an increase in the Federal tobacco tax is sound public health policy. It provides a reliable revenue source to offset the costs of expanding coverage to low-income children and it will reduce health care costs in this country by reducing the prevalence of chronic disease.

This bill also addresses a serious problem arising from the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Opponents of this responsible, common-sense, humane adjustment claim that language in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, that imposed harsher citizenship verification requirements on state Medicaid programs, is the only barrier protecting taxpayer dollars from being spent on healthcare for illegal immigrants. Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

First and foremost, existing Federal law and provisions in the CHIP Reauthorization Act prevent Federal funds from being spent to provide benefits for illegal immigrants. Section 605 specifically states that ``nothing in this act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal immigrants.'' Illegal immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid, and nothing in the CHIP Reauthorization Act would change that fact.

Secondly, the DRA requirements have overwhelmingly failed to save taxpayer dollars. Instead, they have imposed substantial additional costs on taxpayers while reducing health care benefits available to poor children. Wait times have skyrocketed, and measures to streamline the application process have been rendered impossible.

Third, these draconian requirements, which are far stricter than those employed by other government programs, have caused tens of thousands of U.S. citizen children to lose health insurance coverage. In Virginia, there was a net decline of more than 11,000 children enrolled in Medicaid during the first 9 months of implementation. Kansas has seen a net decline of 14,000 children. The Virginia State Medicaid Office has identified a total of two undocumented immigrants during this period.

The debate about reauthorizing SCHIP should be about the public health and improving the health of our children. In a recent survey, 90 percent of parents applying for Medicaid for their children indicated that they have no other health coverage available. Allowing State flexibility in citizenship verification is sound public health policy that would enable thousands of American children access to vital

health services to help them live better, healthier, and more productive lives. Twenty-four Senators, twelve Governors, and fifty-one other House Members joined me in requesting that this important provision be included. I thank the Committees for including this provision, and for working with our Republican colleagues to improve the provision and ensure that SCHIP and Medicaid serve the low-income American children they were aimed at.

Reauthorizing SCHIP is sound public health policy--research shows that children who have access to health insurance are substantially more likely to access key preventative services, miss fewer days of school due to illness, get better grades, and continue to have superior outcomes later in life. Moreover, the financial benefits of covering children vastly outweigh the costs--one need only compare the cost of a visit to a primary care provider to the cost of a night spent in the emergency room to see this. But above all, covering all our children is a moral imperative--it is the only possible humane, responsible course of action. I urge a yes vote on the underlying bill, and furthermore, would urge the President, in the strongest possible terms, not to veto this vitally needed, responsible legislation to cover the most vulnerable members of our society: our children.

Madam Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office just released an analysis that on top of the half a trillion dollars that we have already spent on the war in Iraq, it will cost us another $2 trillion over the next decade. That includes $564 million of interest, because every dime of this war in Iraq has been borrowed, from our children and from our grandchildren. It will come to a greater cost than the cost of the Korean, the Vietnam War and all three theaters of operation in World War II. It boils down to about $7,000 for every man, woman and child.

And here we thought the only real sacrifice was being borne by our soldiers and their families. We are beginning to see the real implications for all of America. In fact, just last week, the President vetoed a bill that would have cost $35 billion but would have provided health care to 10 million children over the next 5 years and at the same time demanded that we instead spend that same amount of money for 3 weeks in Iraq. This is not what America expects from its President or its Congress, Madam Speaker.