Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wish to join a number of my colleagues in congratulating the new Democrat majority for their work in the area of earmarks. We know that earmarks are perhaps a small portion of spending in this body, but they are a large portion of the culture of spending. And I certainly salute them for that work; but, Madam Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose this rule because of the so-called PAYGO provision which has been adequately pointed out is really a tax-go provision.

If PAYGO indeed lived up to its name, it would be worthy of support, but it is not. I fear that it is nothing more than false advertising. I listened very carefully to our new Speaker yesterday when I believe she said that there would be no new deficit spending under the watch of the Democrat majority. But as I look at this so-called PAYGO provision, I see nothing that deals with entitlement spending, which threatens to bankrupt future generations, our children and our grandchildren, with either massive debt or a massive tax increase.

Over half of our budget deals with entitlement spending. There is nothing that deals with that. It doesn't deal with baseline budgeting. Now, most Americans don't know what that is, it is inside baseball, but it is an accounting concept that would make an Enron accountant blush. It puts in automatic inflation for government programs, yet we don't call it new spending. And yet there is nothing in this so-called PAYGO provision dealing with that. And we don't even have a statute.

It is also false advertising, Madam Speaker, because it doesn't live up to what the Democratic majority advocated when they were in the minority. We have a rule; we don't have a statute, the rule that will end up being waivable. We don't have the sequester mechanism of earlier PAYGO. We don't have the wedding with the discretionary caps that we had. And, indeed, what we have is a subterfuge here. What we have is a Trojan horse for more tax increases on small businesses and American families that threaten the jobs of Americans, and we must vote this down

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, and, unfortunately, I have to oppose this particular rules package.

I listened very carefully to our new Speaker when she spoke of fairness, and yet I see that the minority is not being given the opportunity to offer amendments to this particular package when it comes to the floor. We are being asked to vote on things we don't even know what they are about, something that, Madam Speaker, your party complained of when you were in the minority.

But I specifically am disturbed by what I see in supposedly the fiscal responsibility portion that this rule package would allow. I heard our new Speaker talk about how important it was to bring PAYGO to the floor of the House; and I agree, it is a great concept.

Unfortunately, what is being offered, where the minority doesn't have an opportunity to amend, is really false advertising, because what we have, Madam Speaker, is, number one, this concept called baseline budgeting, where these programs are going to grow automatically in what we call discretionary spending, and yet this PAYGO doesn't apply to this. Anything that the majority writes into the budget resolution again is exempted from PAYGO. All of the entitlement spending, a majority of the spending, which could bankrupt our children and our grandchildren, once again is exempt.

What is covered, Madam Speaker? It is hard to find. But anything that is, then the majority has 5 to 10 years apparently to put off the costs, and somehow we are supposed to be convinced in 5 to 10 years they are actually going to pay for it.

Again, this is false advertising. This isn't PAYGO; this is TAXGO. All this is is a subterfuge to make sure that hardworking American families are denied the tax relief that the Republicans and President Bush brought, the tax relief that created 6 million new jobs, that created the highest rate of homeownership in the history of our country, that helped deficits fall, that ensured that real wages came up. That is why we need to oppose this rule, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding contributions of COL Jeanette L. Sterner of Holly Lake Ranch in Wood County, Texas. Colonel Sterner has spent a lifetime in service to her country in the United States military and in the process has earned a multitude of honors including: the Meritorious Service Medal; an Army Commendation Medal; an Army Achievement Medal; an Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal; a National Defense Service Medal; a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; an Armed Forces Reserve Medal; an Army Service Ribbon; and a Sharpshooter Badge.

During her years of service to the United States, she also earned five State awards: the Oklahoma Meritorious Service Medal; the Iowa Achievement Medal; the Iowa Commendation Medal; the State of Texas Medal of Merit; and the Texas Adjutant General Individual Award.

Jeanette's service to her country does not end with her military heroism. She has also served her local community in a variety of ways including youth involvement. She has worked as a school psychologist for Sacred Heart Catholic School, for Mount Saint Mary's High School, for Christ the King School, and has even managed to find time to serve as a youth director for her church.

She has earned numerous civilian awards and memberships for her efforts, including Who's Who in American Universities and Colleges, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the South and Southwest, Biographee for the Directory of Distinguished Americans, and Personalities of the South.

Jeanette currently serves as president of the Homeless Veterans Services of Dallas, working diligently to obtain single residence housing for homeless veterans. In addition, she serves as president of the Women's Auxiliary of the Greater Hawkins Veterans Association, maintaining a memorial in honor of local veterans.

Without a doubt, Jeanette's service to her community is extensive, and on behalf of the people living in the 5th District of Texas, I applaud her for her commitment to both her community and her country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6345) to make a conforming amendment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to examinations of certain insured depository institutions, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6345.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6345 which makes a minor but important change to the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. The Regulatory Relief Act, a strong bipartisan bill which was recently signed into law, is a strong first step in reducing the excessive regulatory burden on America's insured financial institutions in order to benefit consumers and to benefit the overall economy. This bill, which is virtually identical to the provision included in our House regulatory relief bill, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and which I had the honor to coauthor, will make it even better.

H.R. 6345, which is sponsored by Subcommittee Chairman Bachus, as well as Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, gives banking regulators the discretion to grant well-managed and well-capitalized institutions with good ratings an 18-month bank examination cycle rather than a 12-month cycle.

The bill that we are considering today is consistent with the goals of the Regulatory Relief Act that again was signed recently into law. Prior to passage of the Regulatory Relief Act, well-managed, well- capitalized insured depository institutions that had less than $250 million in total assets and that had an outstanding rating qualified for an 18-month exam cycle instead of the 12-month exam cycle.

In addition, the Federal banking regulators had the discretion to grant, through regulation, eligibility for the 18-month cycle to well- capitalized and well-managed institutions with good ratings, which the regulators have indeed done. The Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 included language to extend the exam cycle from 12 to 18 months only for outstanding rated institutions with assets up to $500 million but did not make a conforming change for institutions with good ratings. H.R. 6345 simply makes that parallel change.

H.R. 6345 is commonsense legislation. Changing the current discretionary threshold from $250 million in assets to $500 million gives the regulators more flexibility to focus on troubled institutions, while still examining well-capitalized, well-managed institutions at least once every 18 months. Nonetheless, the legislation would not prevent a Federal banking agency from conducting an examination of any institution more frequently, if deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I insert into the Record a December 4, 2006 letter requesting this change, signed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and finally, the Office of Thrift Supervision.

December 4, 2006.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Before adjourning the 109th Congress, we

urge you to consider the attached additional regulatory

burden relief amendment that would allow the appropriate

Federal banking agency to extend, from 12 months to 18

months, the on-site examination cycle for all qualifying

highly rated banks and savings associations with total assets

of up to $500 million if the agency determined that such

action was consistent with safety and soundness.

The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006

(``FSRRA''), Pub. L. No. 109-351, made many important changes

that relieve unnecessary burden on our nation's depository

institutions. One such amendment in Section 605 raised, from

$250 million to $500 million, the total asset threshold below

which an insured depository institution may qualify for an

18-month (rather than a 12-month) examination cycle. In order

to qualify for an extended 18-month exam cycle, a small

insured depository institution also must be well capitalized

and well managed and meet certain other supervisory

conditions set forth in section 10(d) the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act. See 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1820(d).

One of these other supervisory conditions relates to the

composite condition of the institution. Prior to FSRRA, all

insured depository institutions that had less than $250

million in total assets (the then effective total asset

limit) could qualify for an 18-month exam cycle if the

institution had received a composite rating of

``outstanding'' or ``good'' at its most recent examination.

This was because Federal law authorized the Federal banking

agencies to permit institutions with assets of up to $250

million in total assets and a ``good'' composite rating to

qualify for an 18-month exam cycle if the agencies

determined, as we did, that such action was consistent with

principles of safety and soundness. See id. at

Sec. 1820(d)(10); 63 Federal Register 16378 (April 2, 1998).

Although FSRRA raised the total asset threshold for an 18-

month exam cycle to $500 million in section 10(d)(4), the Act

did not make a corresponding change to section 10(d)(l0) to

allow an institution with between $250 million and $500

million in total assets to qualify, with agency approval, for

an extended exam cycle if the institution has a ``good''

composite rating. Accordingly, numerous well capitalized,

well managed and well run community banks and savings

associations currently are not able to benefit from the

increased regulatory flexibility granted by section 605 of

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

I want to conclude and say again, I very much thank the ranking member for coming to the floor personally to urge passage of this legislation and to also, on a personal note, congratulate him as he will soon become the chairman of our Financial Institutions Committee.

As a Republican, I did not look forward to Democrat control of this House, but if I have to be stuck with somebody, I cannot think of one I respect more than the gentleman from Massachusetts who brings unparalleled wisdom and wit to the committee. I have no doubt that the great tradition of bipartisanship that Chairman Oxley established in this committee will be further carried out under his leadership.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his gracious comments as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time.

I certainly thank my friend for yielding time, and I did not want to let my dear friend and colleague from Minnesota depart without at least adding my thoughts as well.

I did a little homework this evening to discover that, even though my own heritage is German, I know little about it, that Gutknecht means good hired hand in that language. And we have a good hired hand amongst us, Mr. Speaker.

I had the honor and privilege of first meeting this man back in 1996 when we were both involved in the Phil Graham for President Campaign. Senator Phil Graham is my dear friend and mentor; and although that battle perhaps did not end well, for me it cemented an admiration for the gentleman from Minnesota. And although, as you can see and the American people can see, he certainly has a folksy Midwestern way about him that really belies the fact that I believe him to be one of the deepest thinkers that we have in this United States Congress, and I know that his principle compass always points in one direction. And I have seen this man take many, many tough votes, and I have seen this man go against his own party when he thought he was right. He is a man who puts country above career, and I have seen him do it time and time again.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that his departure from this body is not only a loss to him, but as I have the great honor and privilege in the future to follow my dear friend from Indiana and chair the conservative caucus of the House, the Republican Study Committee, that certainly his wisdom, his insight, his leadership will be sorely missed. He is a great leader. He has done great for the people of Minnesota, he has done great for the people of America, and I am proud to always call him my friend.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wish to add my own meager voice to those who celebrate the career of Ernest Istook, truly one of the great leaders in the conservative movement in the last decade.

Certainly his vision, his forethought, his courage to help found the modern Republican Study Committee has been critical to any progress that the conservative movement has achieved in this House. And, Mr. Speaker, it has been much. It has been much.

So as a Texan, I will certainly miss my colleague from north of the Red River. Again, as the incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee, I will certainly miss the wisdom and leadership that he has to provide. But I know that he hopefully will not go far and be available to us at all times.

I want to say again how proud I am to know this man and celebrate his work to try to balance the Federal budget as families have to balance their budget every single day.

And even more importantly, Mr. Speaker, for the work that he has done to ensure that in this Nation that it is truly one Nation under God because we know that our unalienable rights are granted to us by our creator, and that unless we champion the cause of public affirmation of faith, we cannot preserve liberty unless we know and allow people to affirm their faith in public that these rights are given by God himself, and that is the work of Ernest Istook, and I am proud to know him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to say that Congressman Sodrel will be missed. His cheerful countenance will be missed. In getting to know him, I got to know a man of courage who would always vote on principle, who knew what needed to be done and would do the right thing regardless of the consequences, a man who has served his Nation well, and like the other gentleman from Indiana has said, will serve his Nation well again in the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that God only made one J.D. Hayworth. And right now he is saying, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' What a powerful orator.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we celebrated the congressional careers of proud sons and daughters of the Republican Study Committee, proud sons and daughters of the Republican Party, proud Members of this body who have served their Nation well.

We thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding contributions of Andrea Pickens, a model citizen of Cedar Creek Lake, Texas. Andrea has long dedicated herself to her community, supporting organizations including Mabank ISD, Trinity Valley Community College and the Youth Rodeo Organization. She has given her time and effort to her fellow citizens, particularly helping those most in need through civic work with the American Heart Association, the Council of the Blind, and one very dear to me personally, the American Cancer Society in Henderson County. Andrea also serves on the Board of Directors for the Kaufman Hospital District.

In addition to her dedicated hours of community service, Andrea also contributes immensely to improving the commerce and local economy of her community. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Mabank Chamber of Commerce and the 1st State Bank of Athens while still finding the time to own and operate the new Tri-County Ford Dealership in Mabank with her husband Joe.

Andrea's work on behalf of the Cedar Creek Lake community has earned her a well deserved ``Citizen of the Year'' Award as well as a ``Lifetime Service'' Award. She has been an invaluable leader to the district, and through both word and example she has encouraged and fostered a communal mentality of public service and involvement.

Andrea Pickens has offered so much of her time and financial support to the causes that help to better our community. Her generosity and example is well known, and I thank her for being a blessing to the community.

On behalf of the citizens of Cedar Creek Lake and the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to be able to recognize Andrea Pickens in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, as many know, last year, I authored the Right to Fly Act which would completely and immediately repeal the Wright Amendment. The legislation ignited quite a debate in the metroplex.

Within a year the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth as well as D/FW Airport, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines reached an historic consensus among them. I saluted Mayors Miller and Moncrief for their tenacity and leadership in forging that consensus. Although disappointed, I certainly was not surprised to learn that their plan did not mirror my own. Still, I stood ready to compromise and support a congressional plan that provided immediate ``through-ticketing'' and full repeal of Wright 8 years later. Then I read the fine print.

Although I respect my Congressional colleagues with differing opinions, in my view, the Wright Amendment is not really repealed under this plan. It is simply repackaged. As a fervent supporter of free markets, I simply believe that the U.S. Congress should not interfere in the market competition between airports.

Still, I have always maintained a willingness to support Wright Amendment repeal plans aside from my own as long as they met a two-fold test: (1) the plan clearly benefits consumers and (2) the plan removes Congress from the business of airport protectionism, which costs us greatly. According to the Department of Transportation, we pay about \1/3\ more for long distance airfares.

With respect to consumers, I am concerned that the agreement essentially constitutes an 8 year extension of the current Wright Amendment as opposed to a gradual phase-out. One study indicated that consumers annually pay almost $700 million extra in airfares due to the Wright Amendment. An 8-year extension would cost consumers an additional $5 billion--which, even by Washington standards, is a big number and a huge burden to American families.

On the other hand, I believe immediate ``through-ticketing'' can positively impact competition and airfares. American Airlines and Southwest Airlines commissioned a study--the findings of which I announced at a recent Congressional Hearing on the Wright Amendment-- that concluded that through-ticketing can produce $259 million in fare savings annually. I find it encouraging that consumers could recoup some of their losses from this part of the local agreement.

My main concern is that the agreement does not get Congress out of the business of interfering with airport competition. That is the essence of the Wright Amendment, not the specific interference of perimeter restrictions. For example, in the local agreement, the City of Dallas agrees to reduce the number of gates at Love Field from 32 to 20. Though I might not like it, I respect their right to contractually bind themselves and decide whether Love Field is limited to 20 gates, 10 gates or even shut down. It is their airport.

But I believe it is wrong for the parties to ask Congress to establish into Federal law their private contractual obligations. Those are enforceable in court. By including these privately made agreements in a new federal law, Congress would be replacing one complex set of anti-competitive rules with another. Terminating today's version of the Wright Amendment, whereby Congress imposes distance limitations on an airport, only to replace it with a new version of the Wright Amendment whereby Congress imposes gate limitations on an airport, does not constitute repeal--today, in 8 years or ever. Additionally, the unusual anti-trust exemption language is troubling.

For far too long the Wright Amendment has been a burden on both consumers and the national economy. In the spirit of compromise, I again would support a simple federal law that would enact immediate through-ticketing, fully repeal of Wright in 8 years while respecting the rights of American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, D/FW and the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas to otherwise enter into lawful contracts to mutually bind themselves as they choose.

Try as I may, I cannot in good faith support the current bill, which I fear simply replaces one version of the Wright Amendment with another.

Should this legislation become law, I hope it proves to be of significant benefit to the air traveling public. If it does, I will take some satisfaction knowing I helped play a small role as its catalyst.

Mr. Speaker, I have had many opportunities to speak extensively in subcommittee, committee, and on this House floor for the need that we have for regulatory relief for financial institutions, so I will refrain from doing that today.

Prior to coming to Congress, I was in private business. They teach you in private business that once you conclude a deal, quit talking.

We seem to have finally concluded a deal with the other body. However, I am no longer in business, I am in Congress, so I cannot quite take the whole of the advice. So, instead of quitting talking, I will at least attempt to be brief.

As the chairman noted, people long before me have worked on this piece of legislation; and it appears that it will soon culminate in success.

I certainly want to thank Chairman Oxley for his leadership on the committee. I want to thank his trusting need to carry this legislation. I want to thank him for creating a place in Congress where good things can be done for America on a bipartisan basis; and, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are not that many places where that is done.

I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Bachus, the gentleman from Alabama, for his counsel and help in moving this important piece of legislation through his subcommittee.

I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member, for his help, his counsel, his reaching out to work on a bipartisan basis; and, finally, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore). We worked together to bring this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank several members of my own legislative staff. I am now, unfortunately, on my third legislative assistant working on this staff. Two of them prefer the rigors of graduate school to trying to see this particular piece of legislation to fruition. But I do want to thank Gerry O'Shea, Jamie Notman, and now Steven Sepp for their invaluable work, as well as the full committee staff of the Financial Services Committee for all they have done.

Mr. Speaker, it has been noted, not only is this an important piece of legislation, I do want to celebrate it, but I first want to get out of the way some of my disappointments. I am disappointed that the other body did not see the wisdom in BSA relief that was included in our version of this bill. Hopefully, one day they will see the overlapping problems we have with the suspicious activity reports, the cash transaction reports, know your customer. Vital programs, but one that creates a large burden for our financial institutions.

I am sorry that the other body did not see the wisdom in doing something about the Graham-Leach-Bliley privacy notifications, where financial institutions have already notified their customers and do not change their policy.

Finally, regardless of the merits as a stand-alone issue on the stale reserves at the Fed, I am also disappointed that the other body has really created a challenge on the budgetary side in including that provision in the title.

Notwithstanding that, I feel a little bit like somebody who helped bring a child into the world, raised the child, sent them to the big city, and I am having trouble recognizing them, but, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I know that that is still my child. And so I enthusiastically urge the adoption of S. 2856 by this body.

We must from time to time weed the garden. We have an obligation to make sure that every regulation does not exist in perpetuity. Markets change, people change, conditions change.

We are one of the richest, freest nations on the face of the planet, and part of the reason is because of capitalism. You cannot have capitalism without capital. One of the main responsibilities our committee has is to ensure that we have a vibrant capital market; and certainly our credit unions, our community banks that serve our smaller institutions, inner city, play a very vital role in those capital markets. They have been burdened.

For example, over the last decade, we have lost almost a third of our community banks. And when you speak to people at these financial institutions, there are a number of reasons for the mergers, for the consolidations, but many of them will tell you that the cost of the Federal regulatory burden is the number one reason why so many of them have gone out of business.

They play such a vital role in our rural communities.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is just incumbent upon us because excessive regulation, redundant regulation, costly regulation, not only does it harm these financial institutions, but at the end of the day, it makes the accessibility and the cost of credit more difficult. It means that average Americans, maybe they will not have that opportunity to buy that first home, to make that first down payment; maybe they will not have the opportunity to buy that second car that is necessary for a spouse to take a second job; maybe they will not have that opportunity to send a child to the college they want to send them to; maybe they will not have that opportunity to start a new small business, to create jobs and hope and opportunity.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are making great strides today, and because of that, I know that we will help these American families help realize their version of the American Dream with a little bit of reason in weeding this regulatory garden and making sure that they can have better lives.

So, again, I appreciate the opportunity that the chairman has given me and certainly his leadership will be severely missed but never forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I certainly thank him for his leadership on a variety of issues to help strengthen our border.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6095. But before I address the specific provisions of this legislation, I think it is important to put this bill in the larger context because, Mr. Speaker, we are having a debate that has been ongoing for a number of months in this body; and, Mr. Speaker, there are many of us who believe that border security is national security. We ignore our borders at our own peril.

Iraqis have been caught trying to infiltrate our southern border. Jordanians have been captured. Iranians have been captured, having infiltrated our border. Areas of the world where al Qaeda recruits, these people have crossed our border. Al Qaeda has made contact with human smugglers in Mexico. Every evening thousands are attempting to cross our borders, and only some are apprehended.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that many are good folks who are merely trying to feed their families and mean us no harm. Yet some also come here because they seek free education and free health care and welfare. Some are coming here because they are bringing violence and pushing drugs to our children and grandchildren. And, unfortunately, there may be a few who are coming here to try to bring down our airlines.

Again, we ignore border security at our own peril. Yet Democrats are holding our border security hostage for their views on amnesty, their views on giving government benefits and welfare to those who are here illegally. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable.

Now, this bill will help, help eliminate the catch and release program. At least in my part of Texas when constituents hear ``catch and release,'' they think it has something to do with bass. They have no idea that we have been apprehending illegal immigrants and letting them back on this side of the border. That is unacceptable. And contrary to what some of our friends have said on the other side of the aisle, this does not mandate that local law enforcement get involved in this battle, but it helps empower them. And we are fighting a global war on terror, and shoring up porous borders is a critical part of that war. Why can't we come together as Republicans and Democrats and Independents and secure our border first?

I understand there are many legitimate issues, but at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we are not debating immigration, yes or no; but we are debating immigration, legal or illegal, and we allow illegal immigration at our own peril.

Let's secure our borders, and let's support H.R. 6095.

Mr. Speaker, Iraqis have been caught trying to infiltrate our southern border. Iranians have been detained trying to cross our southern border, Jordanians and people from countries where al Qaeda recruits.

Border security is national security, and yet the Democrats are now holding hostage border security for their amnesty plan. This is wrong. Mr. Speaker, we have the means to control our border, but do the Democrats have the will?

When they talk about immigration, the question is not yes or no, the question is illegal versus legal. That is the question. We know that a fence does not solve the entirety of the problem, but if you talk to our Border Patrol, as I have, if you have talked to our border sheriffs, as I have, you will note that strategically placed fences and walls, particularly where these human smugglers will gather, is a very important part of a comprehensive strategy to control our border and helping stem the tide of illegal entry.

We know that many people are coming here for the right reasons, but many people are also coming for the wrong reasons. Unbridled, illegal immigration threatens our national security, our border security and the rule of law. We should approve this legislation and take that first bold step in helping secure our borders.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly thank him for his leadership in helping bring this rule.

Two hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars to implement ``garden mosaics'' at a local university, $179,000 to produce hydroponic tomatoes, $550,000 for a Museum of Glass, $400,000 for an Italian market in the Bronx, $500,000 for buses at Disneyland.

Mr. Speaker, there are many worthy earmarks, worthy of this institution, but today there are still too many that do not pass the smell test, that do not pass the laugh test, and certainly do not pass the fiscal responsibility test.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we have to decide do we wish to be judged by the principles on which we stand or the pork that we are able to carry? For the integrity of our institution and the fiscal future of our republic, I certainly hope it is the former.

The simple but profound rule that we are debating today will empower Members to engage in a proper debate as to whether an earmark is truly worthwhile and the opportunity to challenge its merits if it is not.

This is truly a defining moment for those who claim fealty to fiscal responsibility. The question, Mr. Speaker, now is will Democrats put their votes where their mouths are and support this rule? If they do not, they will once again be exposed for the reckless and wasteful spenders that they are.

I want to thank the Republican leadership for bringing this rule to the floor. I want to thank Chairman Lewis for the great progress that has been made in dealing with earmarks under his watch. And I personally want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his courage and relentless commitment to fight irresponsible Federal spending in the area of earmarks, and I urge the adoption of this rule.

Madam Chairman, sometimes in the House of Representatives, we debate and vote on emotional issues. H.R. 503 is certainly one of those issues, and I understand that those who support it hold strong opinions. Having grown up working on a farm and both owning and riding a horse, I do not relish the idea of them being processed for meat. It is something I personally do not care to do.

But this bill is not about whether we are a Nation of horse lovers. It is a bill about whether we are a Nation of freedom lovers. We are presented with a simple question of freedom, namely: will we grant the Federal Government the power to tell livestock owners and family farmers what they can do with their livestock?

Freedom in America often means having to tolerate actions to which we are personally opposed. To protect our freedoms we must first respect our neighbor's freedoms. For instance, I personally abhor smoking and wish every tobacco company in the country would find something else to do or cease to exist. But I will not support legislation outlawing the production and marketing of tobacco products, and I will not support legislation outlawing the use of tobacco products as long as such use does not infringe on my rights or those of my fellow citizens. I would vigorously fight efforts on this floor to regulate them out of business or prohibit them from operating in the United States. I believe there is an extremely high standard that must be met before we restrict the historic freedoms of our fellow citizens. This bill does not even come close to meeting that test.

Those in favor of this bill make a number of arguments as to why we must ban the processing of horses. Though on the surface some of these arguments may be compelling, noticeably absent from any of them is a scientific, health, or safety argument. In fact, the primary reason that proponents of H.R. 503 offer is that we should not process horses simply because, well, they are horses. Clearly, this argument is anything but scientific, and I suspect the cattle in America may be upset with the prejudice.

Some supporters of this bill argue that we must give special protection to the horse because of its prominent place in the heritage of the American West. Well, do not cattle have an even greater place in the heritage of the American West? Yet we use that animal to protect our feet with shoes and nourish us with beef. How is the horse different? Also, I note that those who we celebrate in the history of the West were known as cowboys, not horseboys. Again, how is the horse different? I further note the lobster has a prominent place in the heritage and history of Maine, but I doubt that people of that state would argue that we should stop harvesting it commercially because of its legacy.

Proponents of H.R. 503 will try to convince us that owners who sell their horses in auctions unknowingly sell them to representatives of the processing facilities, with no knowledge that the horse would be processed. Common sense tells me that if these sellers don't want their horses sold for processing, they would not sell them at high bidder auctions. But, if this is indeed a serious problem, Congress could simply pass legislation requiring that horse auctions make all sellers aware that their animals could potentially be bought for processing. Simple disclosure laws will render that argument moot.

Some will claim that horse processing needs to be banned because the horses suffer during transport and the slaughter process and others will claim that horse processing encourages horse thievery. The former is not based in fact. With respect to the latter, just because cattle rustling has been around since the birth of the Republic does not mean we should outlaw the processing of cattle. The same is true of horses. Current federal laws require that horses must be transported and processed humanely, just like cattle. Both of these arguments raise the issue of enforcement. Thus, the solution is to enforce current federal law, not pass a new, draconian one.

While proponents of H.R. 503 have many arguments about why this process needs to be banned, they remain silent about the unintended consequences of this bill. I believe chief among those unintended consequences is that horse owners will not have a humane option to dispose of a horse that is either unwanted or unable to be cared for. In 2005, around 90,000 horses were processed in the U.S. If there was another viable option for these horses, clearly they would not have been sent to the processing facility. This is particularly true for a number of struggling family farmers. If this bill were to become law, it would mean that when a working horse is at the end of its useful life, it will turn into a liability instead of an asset for the family farmer. No one should come to this floor bemoaning

the plight of the family farmer and vote for this bill.

Another unintended consequence is the precedent that we set by prohibiting the processing of livestock for any compelling reason other than we don't think it should be processed. This is a slippery slope issue. As a Congressman who represents a district where--in some counties--the cattle overwhelmingly outnumber the people and more importantly provide a living for many of my constituents, I am particularly fearful that one day a similar movement will make the argument that cattle are no longer appropriate for processing for human consumption. While it may seem far fetched, with passage of H.R. 503, we will have set a precedent that it is permissible for Congress to ban the processing of livestock for non-scientific and non-health reasons, providing those who wish to ban the processing of cattle a legal leg to stand on with either Congress or the Courts.

However, my opposition to H.R. 503 does not mean that I am not mindful of the concerns of those who live near a horse processing plant. In fact, I am extremely mindful of these people because some of them are my constituents, as I have the privilege and honor of representing the people of the City of Kaufman in Congress, which is home to one of the three horse processing plants. I believe that most of my constituents in Kaufman who are in favor of H.R. 503 are in favor, not so much because they believe Congress should criminalize horse processing, but because it means a plant in their backyard that they do not like will be closed. Many believe it is a public nuisance and a strain on the city's infrastructure. I certainly understand those reasons for supporting H.R. 503 more than those offered by Members who do not have one of these plants in their district. However, those reasons fall under the purview of local government, not the federal government.

That is why I am respectful of the decision made by the City of Kaufman and its zoning commission to order the plant closed due to it being a public health hazard. However, I do not believe that Congress should be exercising its authority and infringing upon freedom by passing H.R. 503, simply because of the City of Kaufman's bad experience with the horse processing plant. There might be a community out there that would welcome a horse processing plant and the jobs it could bring, even with the potential negative aspects associated with such a facility. Passing H.R. 503 would take the decision as to whether or not to allow a horse processing facility away from local, elected officials, and keep a local community from welcoming a plant and its jobs.

There is no doubt that a horse is a wonderful animal. For those who do not wish to process a horse, no one is forcing them to do so. In the end, I believe that it is more important to protect the freedom of livestock owners to humanely decide the fate of their livestock than it is to surrender to emotion and ban the processing of horses. This is America. We should love horses but we should love freedom even more.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate and honor Todd Foxworth for being recognized by the Rusk Chamber of Commerce as the 2005 Citizen of the Year.

A native Texan, Warden Foxworth earned his Bachelor of Science Degree from Sam Houston State University in Criminology/Corrections. He was recognized by SHSU as a Criminal Justice Scholar in 1988 and a member of the Criminal Justice Honor Society, Alpha Phi Sigma. He answered his Nation's call to service in the U.S. Army, serving with the 2nd Battalion, 36th Infantry Rangers in the 3rd Armored Division, and was nominated for ``Soldier of the Year'' 90th Army Command in 1986.

After his service in the armed forces, Warden Foxworth served over 19 years with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. His work has been instrumental in the beautitication, emergency relief, construction and maintenance-related demands of the surrounding communities providing offender manpower through the Community Work Squad.

Warden Foxworth is also an exemplary member of the community and has always made an extra effort to help his fellow citizens. He has been personally involved as a member of the Rusk Industrial Foundation and Economic Development Committee. He has worked in fund raising for such charitable organizations as March of Dimes, Toys for Tots, Texas Special Olympics and Cherokee County Crisis Center.

It am proud to honor Warden Todd Foxworth and his valuable contributions to the Rusk Community and congratulate him for being named Rusk Citizen of the year.

Mr. Chairman, on July 13, I reluctantly voted against H.R. 9, a bill that significantly altered the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Contrary to popular opinion, H.R. 9 did not represent a time-critical reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA, which prohibits voter discrimination, is permanent Federal law. It never needs reauthorization. However, certain provisions of the Act (Sections 6-9 and Section 203), which were meant to be temporary and periodically reviewed by Congress, are due to expire a year from now--not today, this month or even this year.

When enacted in 1965, the Voting Rights Act played a critical role in granting equal rights to all Americans to cast their ballots. At that point in our Nation's history, some jurisdictions used extraordinary voter suppression devices like poll taxes and literacy tests that were designed to discriminate against minority voters and indeed had that effect. Congress rightly responded in kind with extraordinary remedies that were deemed emergency provisions. The emergency or temporary provisions of the VRA include Section 5, which requires certain covered jurisdictions to pre-clear any change in their election laws or procedures with the Department of Justice. This means relocating a ballot booth in one neighborhood can require Federal approval. It also includes Section 203, added in 1975, mandating that ballots in certain jurisdictions be provided in languages other than English.

Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is significantly flawed. For example, H.R. 9 does not simply re-authorize Section 5 of VRA but makes significant changes to the section. Specifically, it requires that for Section 5 pre-clearance that minorities as a group, not as individuals, be allowed to elect their preferred candidate of choice. Legal scholars disagree on the meaning of this phrase but many interpret it to mean that states will now be forced in decennial Congressional redistricting to maximize the number of districts where a certain political party wins. For example, in the recent Texas redistricting case it was found that if most members of a minority group vote Democratic, they are entitled to a district that elects a Democrat. If a minority candidate wins the district, that is not sufficient. It must be a Democrat minority candidate. That is not a voting right; it is a voting wrong. No less a legal authority than former Solicitor General Ted Olson has stated the following:

``For forty-one years, the Voting Rights Act has focused on protecting voters' rights to cast a ballot by forbidding States from adopting laws that `abridge[] the right to vote on account of race or color.' The new version of the Voting Rights Act, however, risks shifting the Act's focus to protect politicians' interests in holding office, by entrenching preferred candidates of choice. I believe that most Americans would agree that the Voting Rights Act should be used to protect voters' access to the ballot box, not to protect incumbents' reelection chances.''

Thus, Section 5 should be reauthorized as is without this new language.

Another flaw of H.R. 9 is that it preserves 40-year-old criteria (based on the 1964, '68, and '72 presidential elections) to determine which states and counties are subject to provisions of the VRA. But minority-voting patterns are now dramatically different than they were 40 years ago. For example, today in Georgia, blacks are more likely than whites to register to vote and to exercise their right to vote. The VRA should be used to protect voting rights everywhere, not just the South and a handful of other counties. Discrimination today can happen just as easily in Michigan or New Jersey as it can in Texas or Georgia. Unless this

section is changed, many of our grandchildren will continue to be punished for the sins of our grandfathers. That should not happen in America.

Using election data from 1964--when 60% of Americans today were not even alive--to determine discrimination patterns today is deeply troubling and raises questions as to the fairness and constitutionality of the legislation. The criteria should be updated to the relevant last three presidential elections to assure equal protection under the law.

Finally, I continue to believe that section 203 is bad public policy. In America, English is the language of opportunity. This common language binds us together as a people and strengthens us as a Nation. We must continue to emphasize the importance of learning English to those integrating into American society and culture. This is important to them and critical to the Nation as a whole. Those entering the country illegally clearly are not allowed to vote and naturalized citizens must demonstrate English proficiency before becoming Americans. Thus, contrary to popular notions, there are relatively few Americans not sufficiently proficient with English to cast a ballot. Those that are not already have their voting rights protected by laws permitting them to bring a translator into the voting booth with them. If a city or state wishes to print multiple ballots in numerous languages the Federal Government should not prevent them from doing so. On the other hand, the federal government should not mandate that they do it either. Simply put, taxpayers should not be compelled by federal law to pay for printing ballots in languages other than English.

The amendments that I supported to shorten the bill's extension to 10 years, apply the VRA fairly and nationwide, remove jurisdictions from coverage when they have shown a consistent respect for the voting rights of minority citizens, and end a requirement forcing taxpayers to pay for ballots in languages other than English--would have greatly improved this bill. I hope that appropriate changes are made to strengthen this bill, so that I am able to vote for final passage when it comes back to the House.

There is no doubt that the debate over the Voting Rights Act is an emotional one. For many Americans it has become and icon and rightfully so. The VRA has been a critical weapon in the struggle for civil rights and equal opportunity and should remain so. But the emergency provisions were written in a different time to address a different set of challenges. There is danger in allowing symbolism to overcome reality and principle.

This is not a vote I took lightly. I know too often in America that when the accusation is racism, one may wrongly be considered guilty until proven innocent. I regret the phenomena but will not let it dictate my conscience. Everyday we should not only work to root out racial discrimination but should work to reduce race consciousness as well. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts opined in the case LVLAC v. Perry: ``It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.'' I agree. Instead we should all work together to achieve Martin Luther King, Jr's goal of achieving a society that judges our children ``not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.''

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