Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I recently read with interest an article by Ralph Nader discussing his concerns with the Transportation Safety Administration's (TSA) use of ``whole-body imaging'' scanning machines. These machines, now called ``Advanced Imaging Technologies'' (AIT), allow TSA screeners to search for security risks by looking under passengers' clothing in a particularly privacy intrusive inspection.

I share many of Mr. Nader's concerns, and include a copy of article from www.commondreams.org for the record. Last summer I worked with many of my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle to pass an amendment to the TSA Authorization bill which addressed some of the problems with the TSA's use of these AIT machines. Our amendment prohibited the use of AIT for mandatory primary screening at airports, required the TSA to give passengers the option of a pat-down search, and prohibited TSA from storing, transferring, or copying AIT images of passengers.

These technologies need not invade Americans' privacy so intrusively in order to secure our flights and passengers effectively. After the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt, which AIT may or may not have helped prevent, I renewed my call for the inventors and manufacturers of AIT machines to enhance privacy protections to permit broader deployment of these technologies without the tradeoff to Americans' rights of privacy.

Some AIT manufacturers have responded with scanners with ``auto detection'' capabilities, which reduce the costs and risks of error associated with human screeners. These scanners also produce images that go beyond merely blurring faces to blurring the outline of the scanned passenger's body. As I observed last December, these technologies have already been deployed in Amsterdam at the very airport from which the Christmas Day bomber traveled to the United States. My staff has seen these machines in action, and I feel the TSA should look seriously at whether these enhanced scanners could replace the privacy intrusive scanners currently deployed in airports across America.

I hope my colleagues will join with me in discussing the security and privacy issues surrounding AIT, and the concerns raised by Mr. Nader and others. We all want air travel to be as safe as possible, but this can be accomplished without sacrificing our privacy and dignity, and that of our fellow Americans.

[From www.commondreams.org, June 24, 2010]

Naked Insecurity

(By Ralph Nader)

If you are planning to fly over the 4th of July holiday, be

aware of your rights at airport security checkpoints.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has

mandated that passengers can opt out of going through a whole

body scanning machine in favor of a physical pat down.

Unfortunately, opting for the pat down requires passengers to

be assertive since TSA screeners do not tell travelers about

their right to refuse a scan. Harried passengers must spot

the TSA signs posted at hectic security checkpoints to inform

themselves of their rights before they move to a body

scanning security line.

Since the failed Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest

Airlines flight by a passenger hiding explosives in his

underwear, TSA has accelerated its program of deploying whole

body scanning machines, including x-ray scanners, at airport

security checkpoints throughout the United States. Scanning

machines peak beneath passengers' clothing looking for

concealed weapons and explosives that can elude airport metal

detectors. So far, TSA has placed 111 scanners at 32

airports. They expect to have 450 scanners deployed by the

end of the year at an estimated cost of $170,000 each.

Privacy, civil rights and religious groups object to whole

body scanning machines as uniquely intrusive. Naked images of

passengers' bodies are captured by these machines that can

reveal very personal medical conditions such as prosthetics,

colostomy bags and mastectomy scars. The TSA responded by

setting the scanners to blur the facial features of

travelers, placing TSA employees who view the images in a

separate room and assuring the public that the images are

deleted after initial viewing.

Yet, a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the

Electronic Privacy Information Center against the Department

of Homeland Security (DHS) uncovered documents showing that

the scanning machines' procurement specifications include the

ability to store, record and transfer revealing digital

images of passengers. The specifications allow TSA to disable

any privacy filters permitting the exporting of raw images,

contrary to TSA assurances.

It begs logic that the TSA would not retain their ability

to store images particularly in the event of a terrorist

getting through the scan and later attacking an aircraft. One

of the first searches by the TSA would be to review images

taken by the scanners to identify the attacker.

The Amsterdam airport is using a less intrusive security

device called ``auto detection'' scanning which generates

stick figures instead of the real image of the person and

avoids exposing passengers to radiation. Three United States

Senators recently wrote to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano

urging her to consider these devices. (http://bit.ly/bJFn5K)

More pointedly, security experts, such as Edward Luttwak

from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, have

come forward questioning the effectiveness of whole body

scanners since they can be defeated by hiding explosives in

body cavities. The General Accounting Office, an

investigative arm of Congress, has stated that it is unclear

whether scanners would have spotted the kind of explosives

carried by the ``Christmas Day'' bomber.

About one-half of these body scanning machines use low dose

x-rays to scan passengers. Last May, a group of esteemed

scientists from the University of California, San Francisco

wrote to John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser,

voicing their concerns about the rapid roll out of scanners

without a rigorous safety review by an impartial panel of

experts. The scientists caution that the TSA has

miscalculated the radiation dose to the skin from scanners

and that there is ``good reason to believe that these

scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and

other vulnerable populations.'' (http://n.pr/bKGCKx).

David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for

Radiological Research, has also voiced caution about x-raying

millions of air travelers. He was a member of the government

committee that set the safety guidelines for the x-ray

scanners, and he now says he would not have signed onto the

report had he known that TSA wanted to scan almost every air

traveler. (http://www.columbia.edu/djb3/)

Passenger complaints to TSA and newspaper accounts of

passenger experiences with scanners contradict TSA assurances

that checkpoint signs provide adequate notice to travelers

about the scanning procedure and the pat down option.

Travelers, who reported that they were not fully aware what

the scanning procedure involved, said they were not made

aware of alternative search options. (http://nyti.ms/9hGtUO )

Many travelers complained about their privacy, and their

families' privacy, being invaded. Some were concerned about

the radiation risk, particularly to pregnant women and

children. Some travelers felt bullied by rude TSA screeners.

The Wall Street Journal reported that one woman who refused

to go through the body scanner was called ``unpatriotic'' by

the TSA screener.

Expensive state-of-the-art security technology that poses

potentially serious health risks to vulnerable passengers,

invades privacy, and provides questionable security is

neither smart nor safe. For the White House it is a political

embarrassment waiting to happen.

President Obama should suspend the body scanning program

and appoint an independent panel of experts to review the

issues of privacy, health and effectiveness. After such a

review, should the DHS and TSA still want to deploy body

scanners at airports, they should initiate a public

rulemaking, which they have refused thus far, so that the

public can have their say in the matter.

If you experience any push-back from TSA screeners when you

assert your right to refuse to go through a whole body

scanner and request a pat down security search instead,

please write to [email protected].

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His

most recent book--and first novel--is, Only The Super Wealthy

Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The

Seventeen Traditions.

As Members of Congress, our constitutional mandate is to be responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars and assets. With the debt at $13 trillion and counting, this House and government have failed miserably in the task. During times of fiscal uncertainty, savvy businesses identify excess and underperforming assets and eliminate them. Our government must do the same. The American people agree.

This week's winning YouCut proposal would incentivize Federal agencies to identify and eliminate underutilized Federal buildings and structures. According to OMB Director Peter Orszag, the Federal Government has 69,000 buildings and structures that meet this criteria. The total value of this excess property is nearly $19 billion. The one- time sale of these properties would generate substantial revenues to fill short-term budget gaps. The long-term savings would have a more substantial impact. A leaner real estate portfolio would allow the Federal bureaucracy to function effectively and efficiently, and most importantly, the taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for underused, sometimes vacant Federal properties.

Current law prohibits the disposing of wasted property and cashing in on the savings. Most surplus property must be offered--often at no cost--to other government agencies, to State and local governments, to nonprofit organizations and others. Only at the end of this process is property offered at a competitive public sale. Federal taxpayers have missed opportunities to generate revenue and to reduce the deficit. For example, the Federal Government has conveyed, at no cost, a building in Los Angeles for a mob museum. A mob museum. Land in Massachusetts was conveyed for a public high school, where tuition is over $29,000 a year. And a building in Florida the Federal Government now leases back at a cost of over $100,000 a year.

The proposal would direct OMB to sell these properties and transfer 80 percent of the proceeds to reduce the Federal debt. This would result in approximately $15 billion in debt reduction. The remaining 20 percent of the proceeds would act as an incentive to agencies to quickly dispose of the excess property.

Even President Obama is starting to appreciate the need. On June 10, he issued a Presidential memorandum to department heads directing them to ``accelerate efforts to identify and eliminate excess properties.'' He went on to say, ``Both taxpayer dollars and energy resources are being wasted to maintain these excess assets.'' We seem to be in agreement with the President. We urge the Democrats to join us.

Today, Congress can carry out the wishes of the American people, can support the President's effort to trim the Federal portfolio and take significant steps in getting our fiscal house back in order. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal. It's just common sense.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of House Resolution 879, supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week.

Thousands of teachers in our country inspire our young children to want to learn and to teach them the vital skills they need both to succeed in their future careers and in their lives. We also cannot forget about the librarians, the cafeteria staff, the coaches, the janitors, the bus drivers, the crossing guards, the administrators, all those employees who dedicate their time, effort and talents in order to make sure that our kids are enjoying a safe environment and that they're welcomed into the classrooms and that they truly learn.

Teachers simply do not receive the gratitude that they deserve. Most people can remember that one teacher who inspired them in some way and urged them to explore a subject further. Many of us simply would not have the same lives or careers without a special teacher to guide us.

For me, that was Mr. Kobiashi in the fifth grade, who really inspired me to have a true appreciation for the environment and a true understanding of our oceans and all the living creatures and just inspired me to be a better person. I still remember him to this day and can't thank him enough for the service and the thousands of untold lives that he had touched along the way.

Those are special people, and they ought to be recognized for their efforts, and while I know that this resolution is important, they truly get the satisfaction that they deserve and that they need by inspiring those young people throughout our country.

Yet for all the effort and tireless hours the teachers put in every single

day, we oftentimes forget to thank them formally as well. As a country, we need to do more to thank teachers and educators for their hard work and service to America's youth.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. American Education Week gives us the opportunity to take a week to think about and thank all the educators for their work. Hopefully this week will also inspire all Americans to think about the work that educators do, not just during American Education Week but every day, so that we begin to give teachers and educators the thanks and appreciation that they truly deserve; and that, in each individual community, those people, those parents and the others affected in the community, support their teachers, the educators and all the support staff, and all the moving parts that make these things happen so they can truly feel the love and support of a Nation and make that environment the very best environment it can be for our kids to learn.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I need to stand in opposition to this. Certainly, the Hollywood Walk of Fame has provided enjoyment for untold numbers of people. It's a great destination. Hollywood is certainly a unique treasure that is unique to the United States of America and specifically southern California.

To my colleagues who wholeheartedly support and endorse and stand behind this resolution, maybe I'm a wet bucket of water on a parade; but I've got to tell you, I just don't feel like it's the proper role of the United States Congress to recognize the Hollywood Walk of Fame on its 50th anniversary.

There are plenty of ways to recognize and to thank and congratulate the stars of Hollywood and the impact that they've had on the American ideal and the American entertainment industry. I just don't feel like it's the proper role of the United States Congress to do this, with all due respect. Recognizing educators, absolutely. We're about to recognize Flag Day, of course. Hollywood Walk of Fame? Maybe not so much.

So with all due respect to the 50-plus colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have supported this resolution, I, for one, as a Representative of the United States Congress, simply cannot stand here and voice my support that this is a good use of the Congress' time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, Chairman Towns is one of my favorite people. I have really come to grow and appreciate him; I just happen to disagree with him on this.

There are a lot of people on the Hollywood Walk of Fame who have done some amazing and great things, and for that they should be congratulated, but not necessarily from the United States Congress. There are a whole lot of people on that Walk of Fame we probably shouldn't recognize in any way, shape or form.

The point I'm trying to make is there is a certain segment of our population, from the entertainment industry and those involved in sports, that gets more adulation from the public than they could possibly take, and yet we have true heroes, real heroes who don't get an ounce of appreciation from this body that really do deserve it.

The other day I was watching television--this was just recently--and there was a National Guardsman who pulled around a corner--and I can't remember what State it was, I want to say it was the State of Washington, but I could be wrong on that. All of a sudden, there was a truck that had overturned in a river, and suddenly this guy found himself in a situation where there is somebody who is struggling for his life. He and a few other people, just citizens who woke up that morning and had no idea that they were going to be the heroes that day, went down that river, they smashed open that window, they grabbed a rope and saved this person's life. Where are the recognitions for those true heroes?

I don't think Sophia Loren needs any more congratulations from the United States Congress. And as important as it is to the economy in southern California--I've got an amusement park in northern Utah called the Lagoon. I'm not coming to the United States Congress asking for recognition of it.

Sure, I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, good point. I'm happy to recognize Ronald Reagan, and I appreciate your support. I'll bring a resolution at some point recognizing Ronald Reagan. There's a corner worth standing on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Look, these issues come before the United States Congress. I think there is a time and a place to recognize significant achievements within the United States of America. I am going to ask for a recorded vote on this. It will be an interesting question.

My point is, the economy is struggling; we've got real issues out there. Like I said, there is a time and a place to make these kinds of recognitions. I just don't know that this rises to the same level as recognizing teachers or nurses who hold people's hand as they are there in the final days of their lives.

There are a lot of things that I think we could unanimously look at and recognize. I, for one, don't think that Hollywood needs more recognition. And with all due respect, I, for one, at least will be voting against this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, look, there are lots of reasons America and the world like Hollywood. I just don't believe, in my heart of hearts, that the United States Congress, in a resolution by the House of Representatives, is the right way to recognize the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

From my vantage point, you certainly don't look to the Hollywood Walk of Fame or to Hollywood in general for the principles and values that are representative of the United States of America. That Paul Reubens' Pee-wee Herman has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is a far cry from Ronald Reagan's having a star.

Again, I am just one voice here in this body, but I've got to tell you, as to the people I represent, I'll have a hard time going back to them, saying, You know what? I did the work of the people, and I'm back there, spending the people's money, and we recognized the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I just can't do it.

Again, with all due respect, there are a lot of good Members back there, and that might be an interesting debate to take the few thousand people and go back and forth. I'm going to start with Paul Reubens, and I appreciate your starting with Ronald Reagan. Somewhere in between is probably the right answer.

We need to get on with the Nation's business, with the debt and with the other crises that we are dealing with. That is my point with this, Madam Speaker. I won't take any more of the people's time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

All right. Now, this bill is actually something I can get excited about and that I'm sure we can be in unison on. So I hope Chairman Towns, wherever he might be, hears that loud and clear.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1429, celebrating the symbol of the United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day.

The American flag has been our national symbol for 233 years, and it remains a symbol of freedom wherever it is flown. Since 1777, when the Second Continental Congress adopted the Stars and Stripes, our flag has stood for liberty and justice.

Flag Day was first celebrated throughout the country in 1885, as one early supporter, Bernard Cigrand, a Wisconsin schoolteacher, wanted June 14 to be known as ``Flag Birthday.'' The idea quickly caught on, and many people wanted to participate. In 1894, the Governor of New York asked that all public buildings fly the flag on June 14 to begin observing Flag Day. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed Flag Day as a national celebration. However, the holiday was not officially recognized until 1949 when President Harry Truman signed the National Flag Day bill.

Since the beginning of our Republic, Americans have flown the flag to show their appreciation and pride for this great Nation. Every day, Americans pledge their allegiance to the flag, and our troops carry the flag as they defend the liberties for which it stands. On Flag Day, we remember the importance of our oldest national symbols, and we reflect on the loss of loved ones who died in defense of our Nation.

Let us pledge allegiance to this flag, to declare our patriotism and to raise its colors high to express our pride and respect for the American way of life and for the freedom that it represents.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We're currently dealing with a stalled economy, high unemployment, record budget deficits, and a debt that seems insurmountable. The challenge this Congress faces cannot be more clear. We must cut wasteful spending. We have to do it. We have no other choice. The Federal Government's spending to reduce our Nation's debt is paramount to our successful future. If we want to be the world's economic and military super power, we're going to have to change the way we do business in Washington, D.C.

Now performance-based budgeting can be an effective tool to do just that. It can make clear what Federal programs are not performing and then spell out what Federal programs are duplicative in nature. But performance-based budgeting dictates that we identify the problem and enact a solution. It's not enough to just recognize there's a problem. Most all of us can step forward and say we're spending too much money. But the core question becomes, What are the changes that we're going to make?

One of the challenges that we see within the bill is that it's not necessarily performance-based budgeting because the question becomes, ultimately, What are you going to do about it? It sets out to diagnosis a problem that we already know exists but does not necessarily follow through and prescribe a cure. We know that there are duplicative and nonperforming Federal programs. We know this. We need to finish the job and actually cut those programs. To be complete, the bill must do just that. In its

current form, this bill does not necessarily help us rein in these programs.

For example, just last week, our Information Policy Subcommittee held a hearing on the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, a program which appears to give grants that are duplicative of grants in the National Archives and Records Administration. I questioned then, and I ask it again today, Why should we continue to fund this duplicative program? It costs the committee nothing to find this duplication, so why, if we cannot trim $10 million of Federal spending without a penny, then why should we authorize $150 million to be spent? What exactly do we expect for it to bring in return?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cause the Federal Government to spend $150 million to determine what many people already know. We have Federal Government programs which are nonperforming and duplicative, but the bill before us leaves wasteful programs intact.

As we came to the floor, one of the amendments that was offered, and I really, truly do appreciate, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Cuellar added some language that says, ``Agencies shall fund the reporting requirements of this act out of existing budgets and are authorized to make necessary reprogramming of funds.''

I sincerely appreciate it in every way, shape, or form. This goes a huge way to making this palatable to a lot of conservatives that are concerned about spending an additional $150 million. I still question why it takes so much money for people to just do the jobs that they're supposed to do. But please know the sincerity in which the sponsor is offering this is greatly appreciated in every way, shape, or form. It's done in the right spirit. I think it goes a huge way to causing a lot of people to support this, particularly from the Republican side of the aisle. I cannot thank you enough for the attitude and the approaching and the actual listening to that. For that, we're very thankful.

I do wish that this bill would come under a rule--an open rule. It's hard to believe, but as a freshman in this United States Congress, I will likely go through my entire freshman Congress, the 111th Congress, having never experienced even once an open rule on the floor of the House of Representatives. That's a shame. That's a shame. There should be a way for a mechanism where this bill is brought under a rule, an open rule, where Members on both sides of the aisle can offer amendments and we can vote on those amendments. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

We should not necessarily pass a bill that does not have tough enforcement mechanisms. We can and must do better than this. This body must make tough choices to eliminate wasteful government spending. It should not pass legislation with great titles--A-plus on the titles you're giving these bills. They're good. Who's going to vote against efficiency, effectiveness, and performance. But it doesn't necessarily reflect what's in the body of the bill.

My colleague Aaron Schock from Illinois offered a great amendment in the committee that was shot down which would put a sunsetting provision in programs that are not performing. In the previous administration, there was a Web site called expectmore.gov. It did an assessment of programs. It was pushed by the Office of Management and Budget. It had dashboard indicators as to how these programs that were instituted by Congress, how they were performing based on their own set of criteria that was set in advance. It allowed the American people to actually have exposure.

Unfortunately, expectmore.gov under the current administration is no longer maintained. The information is not up to date; and, consequently, the American people do not have access to the information that they do deserve. I would encourage the administration and supporters from both sides of the aisle to reinstitute this Web site.

I want to conclude by quoting Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag. On May 24 this year, Mr. Orszag said, ``We should never tolerate taxpayer dollars going to programs that are duplicative or ineffective. Because, especially in this current fiscal environment, we cannot afford this waste.'' He is right. He is absolutely right. We cannot afford to let these programs go on, and Congress needs to step to the plate and do something about it. So I do appreciate the amendment that was offered that will go a long way to getting a lot of different support. I do just wish this bill would come under a rule.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I simply just want to note for the record that, quoting from the CBO report of June 7, 2010, regarding H.R. 2142: ``Finally implementing H.R. 2142 could lead to more effective management of government agencies at a lower cost. Any such savings would depend on amounts provided in future appropriations acts.'' I just wanted to note that for the record.

The intention of this is good. I think in a bipartisan way, we want the government to become more efficient. How we do that--well, there are some disagreements, but the intention of this bill I think is a positive one.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentlewoman who just stood here, the fact remains the Democrats are not introducing a budget. One of the fundamental principle things that this Congress should do is introduce a budget. This Congress should be embarrassed that they haven't introduced a budget that we can debate and discuss. It's one of the things that's lacking in this so-called leadership here.

They may want to talk about Bush, but the reality is the Democrats have the House and Senate and the Presidency, and they owe it to the American people, they owe it to this institution to produce a budget so that we can debate and discuss it in the United States Congress. It's one of the fundamental things we should do.

This Congress should be embarrassed that it has yet to produce a budget.

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

House Resolution 989 would urge the United States to adopt national policies and pursue international agreements to prevent ocean acidification to study the impacts of ocean acidification and to address the effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and coastal economies.

As stated in the resolution, Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act last year. This legislation authorized funding for research activities to better understand ocean acidification. This is to the tune of approximately $76 million.

I would stress that, prior to adopting national policies and international agreements which could adversely impact American jobs, the administration needs to continue its efforts to conduct research to better understand ocean acidification to ensure that efforts to address its effects do not necessarily harm the United States economy. We have dedicated significant money for this over the course of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman help me understand why this resolution is needed at this time. I don't want to try to debate-- I appreciate your passion for this topic. It's evident and I appreciate that.

But given that we already passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act and authorized some $76 million, why the need for this additional resolution?

Thank you. And if the gentleman will respond to another question.

It talks in the very first sentence, ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should adopt national policies.'' By ``national policies'' does the gentleman mean the cap- and-trade?

What are national policies, in your mind?

Would cap-and-trade be one of those?

Reclaiming my time, I concur with the gentleman and the idea that we need to pursue green technologies. In my opinion, that includes nuclear technologies, getting the regulatory bodies out of the way so that we can pursue the adoption of natural gas vehicles and other types of things and technologies that would truly help our environment.

I would simply also, Mr. Speaker, suggest that when the characterizations of where the scientific community is on this--I do personally object to the quote ``all scientists agree,'' end quote.

I don't think that is the case. From my purview and my perspective, I don't believe that, quote, ``all scientists agree.'' I do think there is still debate in the scientific community, and I think that's a healthy thing along the way.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about this resolution is the vague nature of what these so-called national policies would be. Again, I would like to ask the gentleman if he would respond to a question.

Is H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey bill, one of the, quote, ``national policies''?

I yield to the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some assertion that this is a worse threat than what's going on in the gulf. The most immediate threat to the oceans, at least that we see, is what's going on with the oil spill in the gulf. And it is nothing short of shocking that this President has yet to even call the leader of British Petroleum. Why he can't even make a call after nearly 50 days is truly absolutely shocking.

Again, I think we need to continue to have a debate and talk about the need to address the acidification in the oceans, but I do find that this House resolution is ambiguous when it talks about adopting national policies, which I think is a thinly veiled attempt to say that we should be adopting the cap-and-trade bill.

Further, I find that this bill is redundant in terms of the fact that Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act last year, authorizing money to the tune of some $76 million.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the gentleman who is presenting this bill and his clear passion for this. But, Mr. Speaker, when it says in the very first sentence that the United States should adopt national policies, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an attempt to try to say that we should be passing the cap-and-trade bill, which I am totally opposed to.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill; I don't think it's needed. We have made a commitment, on behalf of the United States of America, with the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act that was passed in an omnibus bill last year. The money has been set aside. The administration needs to do its work, and I would encourage them to do that. This is an issue that does need to be addressed. We don't try to dismiss that in any way, shape or form; but, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not needed at this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Hoover Dam may be 85 years old, but its legacy of providing emissions-free electricity, water for cities and farms, recreation for millions of boaters, flood control, and environmental protection remains to this day. It is a symbol of what our Nation's legendary infrastructure has done and will continue to do for generations to come.

This legislation specifically continues the promise of delivering clean and renewable hydropower generated at the legendary Hoover Dam. This hydropower helped make the southwest United States what it is today. This bill costs nothing, which is an important aspect in these tight financial times since all of the costs to generate and deliver this hydropower will be borne by the electricity ratepayers. This bill is a reminder of the ``beneficiary pays'' principle that western water and power projects are based on can still work and thrive today.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing this bill forward, the bipartisan manner in which it was crafted, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Jim Matheson, for introducing this important piece of legislation. It's been a pleasure to work with him and his staff in moving this bill forward as it does benefit both the districts and, truly, the population of the State of Utah and, consequently, the United States of America.

The facilities and beneficiaries of this bill are located, like you said, in both districts. And we, again, appreciate Mr. Matheson and his leadership on this issue.

The Diamond Fork System of the Bonneville Unit was constructed under the Central Utah Project Completion Act. The Bonneville Unit is a system of dams and pipelines and tunnels that transports water from the eastern mountains in Utah to the Wasatch front population centers.

This legislation allows for a hydropower developer to install up to 50 megawatts of clean, renewable, and emissions-free electricity at the existing Federal facilities in the Diamond Fork System. This will benefit the people of my district and the U.S. taxpayers in a variety of ways.

This legislation expands on the historical benefits of a proven green technology. Hydropower is the original green electricity that time and again has kept the lights on in the western United States. With an additional 50 megawatts of hydroenergy, combined with other wind, geothermal, and natural gas facilities, my district will again be at the forefront of America's balanced energy future.

This bill will be paid for by the power users, not the taxpayers. Once signed into law, this bill will generate money for the Federal Government by allowing a non-Federal developer to pay for the right to generate hydropower. Without passage, the Congressional Budget Office determines the existing facilities would not be developed anytime within the next decade because the initial investment would be uneconomical for potential developers.

This is a good, bipartisan bill that benefits the environment, the taxpayers, and the people of Utah. I urge my colleagues to support it. I again appreciate the bipartisan approach in developing this piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I commend the Democrat majority for scheduling H.R. 1061 under suspension of the rules today. Today, the House is setting a valuable precedent by removing certain lands managed as part of Olympic National Park from Federal ownership to meet a legitimate need. The National Park Service has expressed support for conveying these Federal lands to the Hoh Indian Tribe without consideration. To date, we have not been made aware of any opposition lodged by environmental groups to this national park land transfer.

The Hoh Tribe has demonstrated a compelling need to add lands to its existing reservation to provide a safe area in which to construct housing and other facilities for its members. The tribe's reservation currently lies within one of the rainiest areas of the country on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Classified as a tsunami zone and prone to major flooding, the reservation receives 140 inches of rain per year. The transfer of land by H.R. 1061 enables the tribe to expand the eastern side of its reservation a little further upland and a safe distance from major flooding. The lands so transferred are currently part of Olympic National Park, one of the most beautiful and pristine parks in the United States of America.

The precedent we set today should encourage the House to consider additional Federal land transfers that have the potential to benefit communities for safe, affordable housing, access, and other economic development interests.

Again, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to express my support for H.R. 1061 and urge the House to pass it in a bipartisan way.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I again urge passage of this important bill and support its passage.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the author of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

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

House Resolution 518 recognizes the life of Jacques Cousteau for bringing the underwater world to the living rooms of the Nation through his television shows and documentaries.

I, like countless others, was impacted by the dramatic way in which he showed us a world that was so foreign and so far away. The work that he did, with that staff and that crew, had a profound impact upon countless people, including myself. It's an honor to stand here in support of the passage of this important resolution and thank him and the great impact that he had for the deep appreciation and education that he gave relating to our oceans.

We urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1295. Now, this is something I can actually get really excited about and proud of the body for taking up because the celebration of the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day is something that I am sure we can be unified on.

This Sunday, May 9, many Americans will take a moment to pay tribute to the estimated 82 million mothers for their immeasurable contributions toward building strong families and successful communities throughout our country.

The first Mother's Day was celebrated in Grafton, West Virginia, 102 years ago on May 10, 1908. From there the custom caught on, quickly spreading to 45 other States. In 1914 President Woodrow Wilson declared the first national Mother's Day as a day for Americans to celebrate a woman's role in the family and as a day for citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war. Celebrated on the second Sunday in May, this holiday has grown to include all mothers in times of war and peace and is now celebrated in many countries across the globe.

Throughout history mothers have traditionally represented the strength of families. Their nurturing spirit transcends any differences in every culture as mothers protect, guide, and teach their children.

As Washington Irving said, ``A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials heavy and sudden fall upon us; when adversity takes the place of prosperity; when friends who rejoice with us in our sunshine desert us; when trouble thickens around us, still will she cling to us and endeavor by her kind precepts and counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness and cause peace to return to our hearts.''

It is with joy in our hearts that once again we honor the women who most of us hold dear, to recognize the steadfast love and support of our mothers who helped shape us throughout our lives.

On a personal note, I miss my mother. She passed away some years ago. I love her and I miss her.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), the chief sponsor of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I simply want to say that the foundation, the future of our country, is rooted in our families--and that starts with mothers. The mother of our children, my wife, I can't thank her enough for what she does and for what the literally millions and millions of mothers do and sacrifice every day for the sake of their children.

I urge the passage of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1247, commending public servants for their service and dedication to our Nation during Public Service Recognition Week. Every day, millions of hardworking and highly talented Americans serve their country and help make the United States even stronger. As a Nation, we owe public servants everywhere our gratitude for the work that they do.

Americans rely on public employees to keep us safe. Every day, men and women in uniform worldwide protect our freedom and allow us to live our lives in peace and security. When we have an emergency, we depend on firefighters and police officers to help us out in a dangerous and difficult situation. Only a few days ago, we witnessed the heroic actions of the Coast Guard in coming to the rescue of over 100 oil workers trapped on the burning Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. During many natural disasters, the dedicated members of the National Guard leave their own families and help people and their communities recover and rebuild in times of peril.

On normal days, all American lives are enriched by public employees. Whether it's the postal employee who delivers our mail regardless of the weather or the public schoolteacher whose constant enthusiasm inspires our children to succeed in school, we enjoy the benefits of the work our public servants give us constantly.

Much of the work of public employees we take for granted and do not even realize. There are people on every corner in this country who step up and do the right thing. Now, from time to time we hear about a public employee who does the wrong thing, and that usually will make the news, as it should, because it is not the norm. It is not regular for that to happen. We will highlight those. We will be vigilant in making sure that our public servants are doing what they're supposed to be doing in serving the public.

Whether it's at the local, State, or Federal level, pubic servants are a significant part of the fabric of this country, and we could not be the great Nation that we are today without their tireless efforts on our behalf.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to support this resolution today which commends the service of the millions of Americans who serve our country daily. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I also encourage all Americans to take some time to thank the public employees that they see for all they do to improve our lives and strengthen our country.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1722 would require each executive agency to establish a policy under which employees may be authorized to telework to the maximum extent possible without diminishing employee performance or agency operations.

Telework has been shown to save money on infrastructure, transportation, and other costs. At the Patent and Trade Office, for instance, millions of dollars have been saved through the reduction of office space due to increased use of telework.

In addition, telework has proven to be an effective way to attract and retain highly qualified, skilled, and motivated employees. As the baby boomer generation begins to retire, these types of tools will be essential to ensuring that the Federal Government can attract the next generation of employees.

This bill would require the Office of Personnel Management to maintain a central, publicly available telework Web site, including regulations regarding telework, and a confidential hotline and email address to report abuse. It will also help ensure telework is included in continuity of operations planning. We saw earlier this year the amazing amount of snow that fell upon Washington, D.C. If we had more extensive telework plans in place, I think the cost to the government would have been certainly diminished.

We must ensure that privacy and security is maintained. That is paramount. It was one of my deep concerns, as we reviewed this bill within the committee, that privacy and security is maintained at all costs and that there be specific rules and regulations in place that are highly enforceable to make sure that the information is secure and private. This bill appears to take these factors into consideration as it is fully implemented.

Historically, the Federal Government has not been at the forefront of deploying technology to permit alternative work environments, lagging behind the private sector in this important recruitment and retention tool. This bill will help close that gap.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their great work on this, including Mr. Wolf of Virginia and Mrs. Capito of West Virginia, as they seek to make sure that these types of policies are put into place and that we, as the Federal Government, with the millions of Federal employees, are doing the right thing in expanding this type of work and making sure that we have the proper rules, regulations, and the safety and security that we need for the confidential information that our Federal employees deal with.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who has been a long-time advocate and has worked tirelessly on this issue.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, briefly, I am very supportive of this piece of legislation. I think it is important for the continuity of government and interoperations. I think it can be a cost-saving measure for a lot of our agencies, but it is not necessarily right for every single employee. I don't want this to be perceived, and I think the legislation does this, in any way, shape, or form for this to be an excuse to spend more money within our own human resources departments. I am a little worried about the scoring of this. Certainly large agencies will need to have somebody who helps shepherd this and move this forward. But for the smaller agencies, some of the other

agencies, it doesn't necessarily warrant that.

I do appreciate during the process being able to offer an amendment that would allow for some flexibility within the different agencies so that they have the internal control and don't necessarily have the excuse to go out and hire another person to try to manage this.

But with that said, I believe in and support this piece of legislation because, as I said before, the continuity of our government, this is a critical component to that. But it is also incumbent upon the executive branch to make sure that we have the safety, security, and the privacy components firmly in place. I believe that OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, will do that. This legislation strengthens their ability to do that, and that is why I am supportive of it. I appreciate the good work on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.