Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week representatives and leaders of Virginia's Native American tribes left their communities and flew to England to participate in ceremonies that are a prelude to the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in America. Some of the distinguished Virginia residents who are making this trip are the blood descendants and leaders of the surviving 25 tribes that once were a part of the Great Powhatan Confederacy that initially helped sustain the colonists during their difficult first years at Jamestown. Virginia's best known Indian, Pocahontas, traveled to England in 1617 with her husband John Rolfe and was received by English royalty. She died a year later of smallpox and is buried in the chapel of the parish church in Gravesend, England.

My colleagues, there is tragic irony that while the Kings and Queens of England have recognized the Virginia tribes, starting with Pocahontas and affirmatively with the Treaty of 1677, the United States Government has not. Today, the Virginia tribes even sport a T-shirt that says, ``First to welcome, last to be recognized.''

Mr. Speaker, it's long past time for Virginia's Native American people to be recognized by the Federal Government. Joining me today are my fellow Virginians: Representatives Jo Ann Davis, Tom Davis, Bobby Scott, and Representative Dale Kildee, in introducing the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.'' This legislation will grant Federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy Tribe, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Tribe, and the Nansemond Tribe.

As we approach the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, we are long overdue in recognizing the direct descendants of the Native Americans, who met these settlers. We must acknowledge these historic tribes, they have endured and remain a significant part of Virginia's heritage. Together, the men and women of these tribes represent a long neglected part of our Nation's history.

Like much of our early history as a nation, the Virginia tribes were subdued, pushed off their land, and, up through much of the 20th century, denied their full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians successfully overcame years of racial discrimination that denied them equal opportunities to pursue their full rights as citizens of the United States, from public education, the right to vote, and even the most basic right to claim their own identity.

That story of survival doesn't encompass decades, it spans centuries of racial hostility and coercive State and State-sanctioned actions. Unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained Federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the Federal Government, Virginia's six tribes signed their peace treaties with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and Charles the II.

In more recent times, this racial hostility culminated with the enactment and brutal enforcement of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act empowered zealots, like Walter Plecker, a state official, to destroy records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' To call yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to 1 year. Married couples were denied marriage certificates and were unable to obtain the release of their newborn child from a hospital until they changed their ethnicity on the State record to read ``colored,'' not ``Native American.'' For much of the 20th century admission to public schools was denied. Even after federally enforced integration, the State and localities refused to provide bus service to the public high schools. These and other indignities are part of a shameful legacy experienced in our lifetime.

More to the point, this legacy has also complicated these tribes' quest for Federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating State and official documents. It wasn't until 1997 when then Governor George Allen signed legislation directing state agencies to correct State records that had deliberately been altered to list Virginia Indians on official State documents as ``colored.'' I am proud to say that Senator Allen and Senator Warner are two of Virginia's strongest advocates for seeking a legislative remedy for the Federal Government to recognize these tribes.

Federal recognition would provide what the government has long denied, legal protections and financial obligations, including certain social services and benefits the Federal Government provides the 562- recognized tribes.

I know that the gambling issue may be at the forefront of some people's concerns. For some of my colleagues there are sincere concerns about the morality and destructive effects of gaming. For others, it has been a convenient excuse to look no further and keep a closed mind.

I have worked to close any potential loophole in this legislation to ensure that the Commonwealth of Virginia could prevent casino-type gaming by the tribes. Having worked on this issue for several years, I have gotten to know many of the members of these tribes and believe they are sincere in their claims that gambling is inconsistent with their values. This position is already borne out by the fact that none of the tribes today engage in bingo gambling despite the fact that they have all established non-profit organizations that are permitted under Virginia law to operate bingo games despite compelling financial needs that revenues from bingo could address.

The real issue for the tribes is recognition and the long overdue need for the Federal Government to affirm their identity as Native Americans. Coupled with this affirmation is an opportunity for the tribes to establish a more equitable relationship with the State and secure Federal financial assistance for the tribes' social services, health care and housing needs. Many of their older members face the prospect of retiring without the pensions and health benefits that most Americans take for granted.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, truth, trust, and accountability should be the defining characteristics of the American Presidency.

President Bush's press secretary, in October of 2003, Scott McClellan, told the White House press corps and, through them, the world at large that Karl Rove and two other high-level administration officials had assured him that they were not involved in outing CIA covert agent Valeria Plame. He said that unequivocally.

Now we find that Karl Rove has sat back in timid silence while he has watched two reporters go through the costly, torturous experience of legal prosecution, all to protect his identity.

Mr. Speaker, the 41st President of the United States, George Bush, for whom the CIA headquarters is named, said that what Karl Rove did was an act of treason. Mr. Speaker, it is time to hear from the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the four bills relating to the Occupational Safety and Health Act that the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider today. While these measures purport to protect the safety and health protections of millions of American workers, in reality, they will do nothing of the kind, and will instead undermine existing workplace health and safety laws.

The statistics on workplace safety is frightening. It is estimated that nearly 4.7 million workers are injured and almost 6,000 workers die due to workplace accidents each year. Thanks to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, workplace safety and health conditions have improved, though there are still great strides to be made, and this is the time for OSHA regulations and requirements to be strengthened, not weakened. On an average day, 152 workers lose their lives as a result of workplace injuries and diseases, and another 12,877 are injured.

These measures do not address the fact that workers are still losing their lives due to unsafe working conditions. Instead these bills punish the very workers the authors of these measures claim they are trying to protect. By allowing employers to challenge OSHA citations, they will undermine the Occupational Safety and Health Act's enforcement policies by penalizing the agency when it attempts to enforce the OSHA law and does so unsuccessfully.

H.R. 742 would require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs for employers with 100 or less employees and a net worth of $7 million or less in any administrative or judicial proceeding in which OSHA does not prevail. While OSHA is already required by law to pay attorneys' fees and costs in any proceeding in which the agency's charge is not substantially justified, H.R. 742 goes beyond that, because now OSHA will be hesitant to cite employees for violations of the OSHA unless there is absolute certainty that they will prevail in a court of law. If OSHA, the federal agency that is tasked with enforcing the law, is hesitant to raise awareness to a meritorious workplace safety issue because they might not win, the true losers in this case are the American workers. Employees have no private right of action under OSHA and depend on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to address their concerns and remedy violations of the law.

H.R. 742 also purports to help ``small businesses'' recover the cost of attorney's fees, but in fact, this bill would apply to the majority of private sector workplaces. It is widely known that across all industries, businesses with fewer than 100 employees have a higher rate of fatal occupational injuries than do businesses with 100 or more workers, which typically have better workplace safety standards in place. It is troubling that this Congress is attempting to rollback the few safety and health workplace regulations that are currently in

place, instead of strengthening OSHA standards in order to save the lives of American workers.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against these measures and protect the rights of American workers and their families who deserve a decent, safe and healthy workplace.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member from Massachusetts, and I also want to associate myself with the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin and his remarks. We have no right to overturn a law that has been on the books for three decades. The gentleman from Indiana, I know, believes in democratic governance. But he wasn't elected by D.C. residents. He was elected by his constituents in Indiana. What right does he have to overturn D.C.'s law particularly in this situation that puts D.C. residents at such serious risk? If the Souder amendment were made law, it would allow anyone who owns a firearm to carry it loaded and without a trigger lock on city streets throughout the District of Columbia. How does that make sense from a homeland security perspective? We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure our Nation's Capital from terrorists and now we are going to turn around and make it okay to carry a loaded AK- 47 or a .50-caliber sniper rifle down Independence Avenue? Are we serious? That is perhaps the unintended effect, but it is clearly the effect of this legislation.

In 2003, the police confiscated 1,982 firearms from criminal suspects. They would not be able to do that if this amendment passes. They confiscated almost 2,000 last year. This overturns their ability to do that. This amendment is an affront to the concept of

home rule, my colleagues, a slap in the face to the people of the District of Columbia. It gives a new meaning to hypocrisy when we talk about fighting so hard to achieve democracy in Iraq. We have an insurgency raging in another part of the world. We are committing lives and billions of dollars to achieving that objective of a democracy, of giving people the right to represent their own interests, to have the people they elect making the laws that govern them. Yet we would consider an amendment that opens another front on the city streets of our Nation's Capital? This is unbelievable that we would even be considering such an amendment.

I strongly urge a negative vote against this outrageous amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the appropriation subcommittee for yielding me the time.

Notwithstanding what my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said, this really goes back to a contract that was issued more than a couple of years ago. It was as a result of very competitive bidding and the winning contractor is required to pay U.S. taxes on every dollar earned in the United States. Every employee employed has to pay U.S. income taxes on the revenue they earn.

Now, if the gentlewoman wants to suggest that there are any contracts where money is not being paid in taxes for revenue earned in the United States, I would agree with her, or if there are employees working in the United States not paying taxes I wholly agree we should collect from them.

But also bear in mind when we do these things, they often come back to haunt us. Trying to change the Tax Code in an appropriations committee is generally not the most effective or appropriate place to make tax law. It can come back to haunt us because we have got so many other corporations that are doing business in other parts of the world and we do not want to be suggesting to them that they ought to shut off that business. What goes around, though, generally comes around. The revenue earned overseas does generate tax revenue into our government here. But it won't if foreign countries decide to punish American

corporations who might win bids on European or Asian or Latin American government contracts.

Like it or not we must compete in a global economy. We have got to be very careful with the precedent that we set. The contract that was issued was competitive. It is a Homeland Security contract. And from everything I understand, they are doing good work and paying 100 percent of the taxes due.

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

We have done this to ourselves. We are $9 trillion in debt. We cannot purchase all this debt. We rely upon other countries throughout the world, whoever is willing to, to purchase our debt. The highest proportionate increase is attributable to China. China is buying up our debt faster than anyone else.

Now, what do we think they are going to do with it? If they choose to dump it on the world financial markets, we go into a depression, I say to my colleagues. It is a financial guillotine they are holding over our neck. Far better that they use these financial assets to purchase American corporate assets in the same way that Japan did several years ago. If you do not want China purchasing our assets, then do not put us into the kind of deficit situation that we have created.

It is far better that China diversify their holdings. If they do not buy American oil companies or Western oil companies, since they desperately are in need of energy to sustain their economy, where are they going to go? They are going to go to Iran, they are going to go to other countries that are not in our interests, and we are going to start contributing to a bipolar world again. We just got through a Cold War with the Soviet Union. If we act in this way, and I know the domestic politics of it, but if we start doing things like this, we are going to contribute to another bipolarity, another Cold War here, which is not in our interest We have American oil companies who own drilling rights and oil resources off China's shore.

It is in our interest to start balancing the budget and issue less debt. But it is not in our interest to forbid China from purchasing assets, even within the United States with that cash and U.S. debt securities that they own. They need to do that. We need to be serious about this and levelheaded. And so I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I do not have any objection to a review of this contract, and I certainly understand the domestic politics, but I think we need to be fully aware of two things about this: how China is able to purchase UNOCAL, and why they need to.

The how is all about what we have done to ourselves. With $9 trillion of public debt outstanding, somebody has to buy it, and 44 percent of our Treasury debt, I say to my colleagues, is foreign-owned. The fastest-growing component of that foreign ownership is in China, and it is a darn good thing for us that they are buying it, because if they were not, our interest rates would be much higher than they are today. They are keeping our interest rates low, but it does not come for free.

The fact is, if we say that they cannot use that money legally to purchase assets, to give 16+ billion to American shareholders in return for a corporate asset, what are they likely to do? They are going to say this currency is not as valuable to us as it is to other people in other countries, so we are going to have to dump this, and imagine what that would mean. They are holding a financial guillotine over the neck of our economy, and they will let it drop if we do things like this that are not well-considered.

Now, the why. They desperately need energy to keep their economy sustained, but if we do not let them invest in western firms, what are they going to do? They are going to invest more capital in Iran, in Sudan; they are going to make those governments even stronger than they are today and a much greater threat to us. So think seriously about this.

Now, the reality is that UNOCAL only produces about 1 percent of our oil and gas production, and they intend to market that and continue providing that to the United States. Also bear in mind, though, that American oil companies have a whole lot of drilling rights and oil reserves off the coast of China. We have an investment all over the world, and when we start with these kinds of resolutions, start deciding, well, we are not going to let the market work, we are not going to let free enterprise control this, this is not truly a globally free economy if it is not completely to out liking. We are going to treat China differently.

I cannot stand State-controlled economies. But when we start doing things like this, there are ramifications that we have not thoroughly thought out, and I think we need to be very careful about passing resolutions like this.

Again, I understand the domestic politics, I understand why we do not want State-owned companies controlling American oil companies, but I also understand why China is doing this. Their CEO was educated in the United States. They will keep all of UNOCAL's employees. Chevron plans to save millions by firing most of them. This is one of the better-run Chinese companies. Ultimately what they are proposing is much more in our interests than the alternatives also available to them. So let us fully consider this before we pass this resolution. I'm voting no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a family from Virginia's Eighth Congressional District whose recognition is long overdue. For every person of national recognition there is a local leader that accomplishes much under the shadow of their more recognized peers. Two of these people are Dr. Edwin and Mrs. Mary Ellen Henderson, civil rights pioneers from Northern Virginia who have worked for social justice for nearly 50 years. The couple, who were married for 65 years, worked tirelessly for the education of African American children. They also chronicled the early civil rights struggles in letters to the editor published around the country and energized their community in Northern Virginia to join the Nation's civil rights movement.

The Hendersons viewed education as one of the primary sources of human progress, and they both served their communities as teachers. Mary Ellen filled the difficult position of teaching the fourth, fifth, sixth and sevenths grades in the local segregated schoolhouse. The two- room facility overflowed with children, and it was heated by a potbelly stove and that lacked running water. Despite these difficult conditions of segregation, Mary Ellen taught with vitality and enthusiasm. Not satisfied with her inequitable surroundings, Mary Ellen worked to improve the conditions around her. By her own measure, she launched a study into the disparity between white and black schoolhouses, focusing on the learning environment and resources. Mary Ellen's work led to the formation of an interracial committee in Fairfax County, and ultimately the decision of the school administration to build the first new school for African American children in the area.

Dr. Edwin Henderson also dedicated his life to education. He focused his efforts on the promotion of interscholastic athletics and was certified as the first African American man to teach Physical Education in public schools. An avid basketball player himself, Edwin is credited with introducing the sport to the Washington, D.C. area as well as promoting athletics within the surrounding African American community. He organized the Interscholastic Athletic Association for black schools, the Public School Athletic League, and the Eastern Board of Officials for African American athletes. In addition, Edwin authored several books that spread awareness about the emergence of black sports. His groundbreaking works included ``The Official Spaulding Handbook,'' ``The Negro in Sports,'' and also ``The Black Athlete: Emergence and Arrival.'' Edwin was a powerful force behind the positive recognition accorded to these athletes. As a result of his efforts, Edwin was admitted as a

charter member to the Black Athletes Hall of Fame.

The Hendersons also endeavored to improve the rights of African Americans in their community. In 1915, their hometown of Falls Church, Virginia, proposed to segregate all African Americans to a designated living area. The couple vehemently challenged the law by uniting people under the Colored Citizens' Protective League (CCPL). The CCPL succeeded not only in defeating the segregation ordinance, but also in advancing numerous civil rights endeavors. The organization later became the first rural branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in which the couple was highly active.

The Henderson's contributions were extensive and continued to be felt throughout Northern Virginia. Although they coveted no recognition for themselves, these extraordinary individuals not only affected their community, but also helped shape the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor these great Americans today.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate the Computer Community Outreach and Education program, or Computer CORE, of Alexandria, Virginia, for celebrating its fifth anniversary. This wonderful non-profit program promotes the realization of better job opportunities through basic computer skills training. It is offered to unemployed and under-employed adults in Northern Virginia, who may have little or no experience with computers, but have something much more important to each of them: an insatiable desire to learn, achieve, and contribute to our society.

These students come from a wide array of families and backgrounds, but all of them leave with the proficiency necessary to enter the workforce and contribute to the economic development of our nation. They leave Computer CORE not only with competence in keyboarding, word processing, and spreadsheets, but also with the ability to identify their own strengths and interests, set goals, develop resumes and cover letters, and pursue their goals and the American dream. In addition, they leave with a free refurbished computer of their own, allowing them to continue to develop their skills at home, as well as teach their families the valuable skills they have learned.

None of this would be possible without the hard work of Debra Roepke, the executive director and founder of the program, as well as the staff of instructors who generously volunteer their time and energy to help these students acquire the skills they need to achieve the American Dream. Through hard work and education, the students of the Computer CORE classes are grasping their future and entering a new stage of life. After graduation, these students will find new job opportunities they never had before. Some will continue at institutions of higher education. Some will teach their families they skills they have learned. But all of them will have truly experienced the American dream.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment not just for the compelling reasons of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), but because if it is allowed to stand as a precedent, it will cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars in additional pension costs.

Support the American taxpayer and support the Miller amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I support this amendment, even though I can fully understand where the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Wisconsin are coming from. But part of the problem we are trying to address here goes back to the Medicare prescription drug legislation which requires that the Federal Government pay the full retail cost of these drugs.

A substantial part of the cost of these ED drugs is attributable to TV advertising. They are spending approximately a half a billion dollars a year on television advertising, saturating the airwaves during family viewing hours when they know the parents and the kids are sitting in front of the television; and now the taxpayer is going to be paying for this cost of advertising. That is the difficulty.

While I understand that we do not want to go down a slippery slope, bear in mind that when we start including these lifestyle drugs in Medicare, that is money that could be spent against cancer and heart disease and Alzheimer's and all the higher priorities that we ought to be using Medicare trust funds for.

So I support the gentleman. I do not think that ED is a health care priority. But the larger issue is should the taxpayers be required to pay for TV advertising, much of which is inappropriate in its message. I did not have any problem, I have to say, when Bob Dole was

the pitch man; nobody would, except maybe Elizabeth for sharing more than the world necessarily needed to know about their personal lives.

But the point is, these ads on TV today are offensive, and we are spending half a billion dollars on them. The American public does not want them saturating the airwaves, and they certainly do not want to be paying for them; and unless this amendment passes, they will be paying for them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment in support of public broadcasting.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey-Lowey-Leach Amendment that would recoup full funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting for Fiscal Year 2006 because it will maintain the highest quality programming available to the American people today.

The Labor-HHS Appropriations Act before us today will eliminate $100 million in Federal funding for the CPB.

This bill will eliminate existing funding earmarked for interconnecting local stations and the transition to digital broadcasting--both necessary modernizations to carry public broadcasting through this century. Money to fund these improvements will be taken from general operating expenses, further limiting public broadcasters' resources.

Public broadcasting provides unique programming not found on major broadcast stations or cable television. Its programming aims to increase awareness, provide multiple viewpoints, treat complex social issues completely, and provide objective forums for deliberation. Public broadcasting serves no partisan master.

It is the most ``fair and balanced'' programming available. Its listening audience, polls have shown, is \1/3\ liberal, \1/3\ conservative, and \1/3\ middle of the road politically.

Newt Gingrich tried to zero out public broadcasting subsidies 10 years ago. He acknowledged before an audience recently an ironic evolution. He listens to NPR every morning now as he drives to work.

While most television programming provides few outlets targeted and appropriate for young children, public broadcasting offers families unparalleled excellence and value. Whether it is Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow, public programs have taught generations of children practical grammatical and arithmetic skills while expanding their imagination and creativity. At a cost of just over $1 per year per person, what parents and children get from free, over-the-air public television and public radio is an incredible bargain and a national asset.

In Arlington, WETA, an invaluable FM and television station that serves us in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC, estimates that the proposed cuts will result in the loss of $1.6 million. Like most stations, WETA operates on a limited budget and the magnitude of this cut threatens the cancellation of programming such as ``Talk of the Nation'', ``Seasame Street'' or ``Marketplace.'' I'm even more afraid for rural radio and television stations that are even more reliant on public funding.

America won't accept a cut in these services. The harm they would do to children's education and the marketplace of ideas outweighs what little effect these cuts would have in the reduction of government spending. The Ameircan people understand we have a robust economy today. These cuts in programming are to pay for the tax cuts we've enacted over the last 5 years for the wealthiest among us.

If anything, we demand an expansion of public broadcasting. We want more programming that promotes detail, diversity, and balance. We need programs that take creative risks to engage the public in thoughtful discourse.

I urge my colleagues to support the Obey-Lowey-Leach Amendment and restore funding for the CPB. Do it for your own children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution because I disagree with this attempt to muddle our First Amendment rights.

I understand and acknowledge the passion that my friends and colleagues demonstrate today. It is disturbing to see images of someone burning the flag of the United States, particularly when we reflect upon the countless men and women who have given up their lives defending this symbol of freedom.

When I was first elected to the House, I cosponsored a flag burning amendment. I did so for many of the same reasons that proponents of the amendment have expressed today.

And yet looking back, I realize I was moved by my heart than by my head.

History reminds us that the strength of America is derived from its basic ideals, one of the most important of which is tolerance for the full expression of ideas, even the acts that we consider obnoxious.

As our Founding Fathers originally intended, the First Amendment to the Constitution has safeguarded the freedom of expression. Tested through times of war and peace, Americans have been able to write or publish almost anything without interference, to practice their religion freely and to protest against the Government in almost every way imaginable.

It is a sign of our strength that, unlike so many repressive nations on earth, ours is a country that not only accommodates a wide-ranging public debate, but encourages it.

Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine and former Senator of Virginia, Chuck Robb, is a man who sacrificed greatly for his nation, in both the Vietnam War and in his political career. Exemplifying a ``profile in courage'' Senator Robb stood against public popularity when he voted against this amendment in order to defend the very freedoms that the American flag represents.

In his moving Senate floor statement, Senator Robb described how as a soldier he had been prepared to give up his life in the Vietnam War in order to protect the very freedoms that this constitutional amendment would suppress. By showing the courage to vote against this amendment, he jeopardized his political career and subsequently lost his bid for me re-election.

Not having fought in a war, I should do no less than Senator Robb did in defense of die freedom he and so many of my peers were willing to defend with their lives.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment should be defeated. In our hearts and our minds we know that flag burning is not a threat to our freedom, limiting the exercise of individual liberty is.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time, but most particularly for his leadership.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made several points. Some of them were consistent with the comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) that there are a lot of good things about this institution and the facilities that we fund.

But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out some of the concerns that many of us share over the Capitol Visitors Center. I share those concerns as well, having been the ranking member of the legislative branch subcommittee before it was incorporated in the full committee. We raised these, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), and I.

It is not meant to be argumentative, but we have created a situation where

the Capitol Visitors Center is going to create some substantial problems in the future. We have a facility that is going to cost well over what was originally estimated. The original estimate was $165 million. We are now over half a billion dollars. We were going to try to get private money. It is all Federal money now, of course. We were going to have it ready for the January 2005 inauguration. Obviously, we are way behind schedule; but that happens in a lot of construction projects.

We recognize this is going to be completed, and there will be a number of things that we will be proud to show. But some of these situations are going to cause more problems than they are worth. For example, we are creating an enormous capacity for visitors. One would think that would be a good thing, but what is going to wind up happening, they are going to be given a virtual tour of the Capitol. The reason for that is we have the capacity for twice as many people to come into that Capitol Visitors Center as can ever come into the Capitol itself.

Now, do you want to be the Member who tells your constituents, after traveling from any place in the United States, and for many of them it takes a whole day to get here, they stay here, they are all excited and they get to the Capitol Visitors Center and want to go to the Capitol and you have to tell them well, actually, there is no room?

Half of the people coming into the Capitol Visitors Center are probably going to have to be informed there is no room in the actual Capitol for you to be able to make a visit today. That is a substantial problem. I think we should have figured that out. I am glad we have capacity; but, again, is it consistent with our real objective, which is to enable all our constituents to see the U.S. Capitol itself?

The taxpayer is paying for this. A lot of the decisions have really not been made by the Members as much as staff, I have to say. It is not the staff of the appropriations subcommittee that has made those decisions, but we have got some major concerns. I think they are well- founded concerns.

I want to raise one now, though, that is not a matter of legislation, but it is one that has been brought to my attention as cochair of the Congressional Prevention Coalition. We have tried to do some things to address public health concerns.

One of them is in regard to smoking. We have a ban on smoking in all Federal buildings but we exempt congressional office spaces. I do not want to change that necessarily, I can understand why there is an exemption in place, but we have a particular problem with the Rayburn cafeteria.

With that, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the full committee on this because I do think we need to address it. In the Rayburn cafeteria, the main dining room is overflowing with patrons generally every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; and so those patrons are forced to spill over into the designated smoking area. The same thing happens when we close the main cafeteria for receptions and special events. Because that main designated area is the only place available on that floor for smoking, it gets pretty asphyxiating according to many of the staff who have contacted me. I think we need to address it because some of these people have real serious health problems in terms of their breathing capabilities; some have asthma and other related problems. They just cannot deal with all of that smoke and they do not have any choice to avoid it given the situation that frequently occurs.

I yield to the chairman of the full committee to see if he has some suggestions in how we could alleviate this problem for the nonsmokers.

I thank the chairman and I thank the interest of Ms. Johnson, the lead staff for the committee on legislative branch issues. Would the chairman be willing to make sure that this gets raised to the appropriate people so we could address it in a constructive way?

I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I think we will pursue it in that manner rather than trying to find some legislative solution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the esteemed leader from Wisconsin for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a Trojan horse of a new and growing financial obligation that we really need to deal with now and to accept the committee's recommendation that it be consolidated with the U.S. Park Police mounted unit. That is what makes the most sense.

In May of 2004 we began with six horses. We were told it would cost about $100,000. Now it costs $145,000. They want another $10,000 for a replacement horse. But, the salaries and the benefits of the Capitol Police officers that are involved in this come to approximately $600,000. So it is not $145,000, it is three-quarters of a million dollars.

Where they are housed is 20 miles away. These police officers have to travel for at least an hour mile down the whole distance of Route 1 to pick them up, another hour back. We are going to move another 18,000 people down to Fort Belvoir, so it is going to be a lot longer than that.

And now, Mr. Chairman, really, we are now told that they had not figured this out, but they are going to need what is basically a giant pooper scooper to be able to clean the grassy area after the horses have gone by it.

Now, I would suggest to the Chairman and to this body that there is not much grass left to patrol.

I was out jogging today. It was one little grassy area left, and they were putting up a chest-high fence to keep the public off that grassy area. I do not know where these horses are going to be parading. And the little spot, what is left now is about the size of somebody's backyard, and I guess it makes it easier for the pooper scooper, but the problem is that we are paying a substantial amount of money, about three-quarters of a million dollars for very limited benefit.

I just cannot imagine why the Capitol Police need a mounted police unit, particularly given all of our other priorities.

I do not know the names.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, number one, when is the best time to eliminate a program other than before it gets fully established? So I think it is important to follow the committee's recommendation.

The second thing is that we know that the police have asked for stables. Once they establish stables, the costs goes up; the program is more established. We have got more investment. Now is the time to kill it. Consolidate it with the Park Police. I fully agree with the committee's recommendation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

The only point I would like to make is that since 1995, this appropriation has only grown by 4 percent. So in more than 10 years we have only had a 4 percent growth, much less than inflation.

We have worked hard to reduce the number of copies. We have eliminated the bound copies of the Congressional Record. I do not know if people have noticed, but we eliminated that which used to be a tradition, and since 1995 we have reduced the number of copies from 18,000 per day to 6,000. I mean, that is substantial progress. The largest cost of the Record is preparing the data for printing and on- line dissemination, and that cost is going to be occurred regardless.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Ruby FitzGerald, a resident of Virginia's Eighth Congressional District that I am proud to represent. Mrs. FitzGerald has truly been a pillar of public service, devoting her career and herself to the betterment of our community. There are citizens who by their perseverance alone decide to make a difference, and she is certainly one.

Perhaps Mrs. FitzGerald's most significant influence on the citizens and residents of the City of Alexandria comes from her two decades of volunteer service to public safety. Mrs. FitzGerald first began volunteering at the Alexandria jail, teaching art to inmates there. Later, in 1986, Mrs. FitzGerald volunteered for the Alexandria Police Department, working in the Crime Prevention Unit. Since the Volunteer Program was formalized in 1989, Mrs. FitzGerald has donated more than 7,000 hours of service to the police department.

In her regular assignment, Mrs. FitzGerald has handled hundreds of phone calls from people requesting crime prevention tips, neighborhood safety and information about youth programs. Because of her contribution of time and knowledge, citizens and business people received helpful assistance and crime prevention officers were free to be out in the community, conducting security surveys and increasing police presence.

Mrs. FitzGerald's service was showcased in May of 2002 by United States Attorney General John Ashcroft. When Attorney General Ashcroft appeared in Alexandria to launch the ``Volunteers In Police Service'' (VIPS) initiative, he specifically recalled Mrs. FitzGerald's service and devotion, recognizing her volunteer work as an example for others to follow.

In addition to her exceptional service to the police department, Mrs. FitzGerald organized an annual holiday party for children in need. For years, as part of the Alexandria Crime Prevention Council, Mrs. FitzGerald collected gifts and coordinated a holiday event for the city's young people. In 2000, Frances Becker of the Carpenter's Shelter, Northern Virginia's largest homeless shelter, wrote of Mrs. FitzGerald, ``You went above and beyond with your generosity and truly made each and every child feel the love and generosity of the Christmas holiday. We are so fortunate to have angels like you.'' Mrs. FitzGerald has been her neighborhood's lead organizer for National Night Out since it was started. Her local neighborhood street, Summers Drive, is always one of the best organized National Night Out events held in the city. Lastly, Mrs. FitzGerald worked on the Crime Prevention Month display at Landmark Mall when the Crime Prevention Council was working on that event. The council hosted this event for several years, discontinuing it only when the mall attendance was getting low.

As if her work for the police department and children weren't enough, Mrs. FitzGerald has set up annual blood drives at police headquarters for as long as anyone can remember. She worked closely with the Red Cross and recruited dozens of donors every time.

Mrs. FitzGerald is one of those incredibly gracious and modest people who give to others for the truest of reasons, because she really, really cares. Mr. Speaker, the people of Virginia's Eighth Congressional District are losing Mrs. FitzGerald as she returns to her home state of Montana. That state is fortunate to inherit a gem of a person. We wish her the best of luck in all of her future endeavors, and thank her one last time for blessing our community.

Mr. Speaker, if you do not know where you are going, you are never going to get there. Another truism is that you do not begin a war without a plan to win the peace.

Is it now well past time for the legislative branch to ask of the executive branch the very things that our constituents are demanding of us: What is the White House's strategy for success in Iraq? How many Iraqi troops need to be adequately trained and sufficiently equipped, to take over the military protection of that country? How many Iraqi police forces are needed to restore law and order? How many more American dollars are needed to rebuild the infrastructure so that nation can be economically viable? And what does this administration consider to be political stability?

These are reasonable questions. We should have had the answers before we went to war, but we must demand them now. It is unfair, not only to the mothers and fathers of our soldiers, but to our senior military officers of our country not to know where they are headed in Iraq.

I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in the debate that just took place. I cannot help but be mindful of the fact that we are still debating today the advisability of going to war in Vietnam which concluded 30 years ago and we may continue this debate on the Iraq war for another generation.

But the comments that the gentleman makes are really not particularly relevant to this amendment that we are focusing on in the rule. I did not feel we should go into the Iraq war without an adequate exit strategy and without more reliable information connecting Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, but I was in the minority. The Congress gave the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. We accept that. But we did not give the President the authority to spend an unlimited amount of money. We did not give the President the authority to take an unlimited amount of time in completing the mission in Iraq. We certainly did not give the President the authority to expend an unlimited number of Americans' lives in pursuing that mission. We have to retain our oversight responsibility.

In the newspaper today, in The Washington Post, maybe some of my colleagues were struck at the juxtaposition of headlines, one headline says, ``Bush Is Expected to Address Specifics on Iraq.'' And on the page facing it, it says: ``Exit Strategy on Social Security Is Sought.'' Interesting juxtaposition. But in the story on Iraq, the White House spokesperson says, the President takes seriously his responsibility as Commander in Chief to continue to educate the American people about our strategy for victory.

That is all this amendment was about. That is all we are asking for, some reasonable information that is critical for assessing how well we are doing, how much in the way of resources are necessary. We put that language into the conference on the Iraq supplemental. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I had it put into report language. The minority leader asked that that language become bill language as part of the defense appropriations bill.

I do not think it is inconsistent with what the White House acknowledges is their responsibility to provide us with measurable criteria for success in Iraq. What level of military capability is necessary for the Iraq forces, what level of economic viability is necessary

for the Iraq economy, what level of political stability is necessary for the Iraq Government.

That is what we are asking. More importantly, that is what our constituents are asking. If we had a child in that war, would that not be the first thing we would want to know? What does it take to accomplish the mission so they can get back home to their loved ones?

The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, just gave us a report that states that ``U.S. Government agencies do not report reliable data on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped. The reported number of Iraqi police is unreliable because the Ministry of Interior does not receive consistent and accurate reporting from the police forces around the country.

Further, the Departments of State and Defense no longer report on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with their required weapons, vehicles, communications equipment, and body armor. Without reliable reporting data, a more capable Iraqi force, and stronger Iraqi leadership, the Department of Defense faces difficulties in implementing its strategy to draw down U.S. forces from Iraq.''

I quoted all those words. That is our GAO. We are not fighting the issue of the war. We are trying to exercise our oversight responsibility. What number of Iraqi military forces are going to be necessary, adequately trained, sufficiently equipped so that we can turn over some of the military responsibility? What number of Iraqi police forces are necessary to restore law and order in that country?

How much more in the way of American dollars are going to be necessary to reconstruct the infrastructure of the Iraqi economy so that it will be economically viable? And how much more in the way of political stability will be necessary so that they could start to govern themselves? Until we get those questions answered, we do not know where we are going. And if we do not know where we are going, we are never going to get there.