Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would improve the long-term health of Americans and reduce the skyrocketing health care costs in our nation. One of the best ways we can accomplish these goals is to encourage companies to implement programs that prevent disease and encourage healthy lifestyles.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am introducing the Preventive Medicine for a Healthier America Act of 2006. This legislation would increase the number of individuals who pursue preventive medicine careers, encourage businesses to offer wellness programs for their employees, and provide public awareness on the importance of preventive medicine.

Preventive medicine physicians are an important resource in the quest to educate patients and communities of health risks, detect symptoms in the early stages of disease, and encourage preventive action. Unfortunately, the number of preventive medicine residency programs and individuals pursuing preventive medicine degrees has significantly decreased in recent years.

As a result, the Preventive Medicine for a Healthier America Act would offer up to $20,000 in loan forgiveness for individuals who become board certified in preventive medicine. Medical school is an expensive undertaking and too many medical students are forced to pursue professions that will provide instant financial benefits. They often must do this simply to payoff student loans. By providing up to $20,000 in loan forgiveness for pursuing preventive medicine, this legislation would help ensure a talented pool of preventive medicine physicians.

Businesses are another important component in the fight to prevent disease among Americans. As businesses realize the financial benefits and productivity improvements involved with the health of their employees, more and more are becoming interested in preventive medicine. Wellness and preventive health programs can be expensive initially. However results over the long-term have saved companies hundreds of thousands of dollars and several have even seen cost savings in the millions.

The Preventive Medicine for a Healthier America Act would provide tax incentives for companies that implement a wellness program for their employees. Qualified businesses that implement wellness programs would be able to claim a tax credit for every employee that participates. A certain percentage of their employees would have to participate for a company to be eligible for the credit, and there are specific requirements to ensure employees benefit. In turn, employees would stay healthier and businesses can see a significant reduction in their health care costs.

Public awareness regarding the importance of preventive medicine is also a key to the prevention of disease. My bill also would require the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out a national education campaign to encourage the use of preventive health screenings. Providing education would encourage individuals to take responsibility for their health and offer information on how to prevent illness for themselves and for their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce the Preventive Medicine for a Healthier America Act which would reduce the risk of disease, encourage a healthier America, and help curb the rising cost of health care for our businesses. It is important we realize as a Nation that taking care of ourselves today will pay the dividends of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution before us. I want to convey a very simple message. We must stay the course. At this crucial point in our history, it is unacceptable to enact a policy of passivity, resignation or defeatism in the face of terror.

Some say that we should surrender and pull out. They may think that this will win them votes and that it is good politics, but it is terrible policy, devastating policy. It is essential that we continue to fight in Iraq so that the fight does not come into our backyards.

Make no mistake, we do not choose Iraq as a front line on the war on terror. Al Qaeda has done that. But we must have that fight over there so we don't have it back here.

Like many of my colleagues, I have visited Iraq and seen firsthand the revitalization of country. The men and women our Armed Forces are fighting terrorists who are trying to claim Iraq for their own. Without their valor and dedication, the progress made in Iraq would not be possible. It takes time, will, patience and perseverance to transition a country once ruled by a tyrannical despot.

Terrorists who seek to eliminate anyone who provides hope for the future have infested Iraq, but they will not succeed. The Iraqi people are committed to freeing their country from these fanatical invaders, and we are too. The Iraqi people's future is in their hands, and right now they want U.S. help.

Just this week, Iraqi army and police forces backed by U.S. troops launched Operation Forward together. This operation was created by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and his parliament, and it is their first major security action since a new government of national unity was sworn in on May 20.

Mr. Speaker, the resolve of the United States should never be questioned. The world must know that the United States finishes what it starts.

We will win the fight against global terrorism, including in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5576, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

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

With all due respect to the gentleman, and I do respect this gentleman, I believe this is an unnecessary amendment. The Congress cannot and should not abdicate its responsibility to review individual programs and make individual recommendations based on that review. The desire to hold spending in check should be based on congressional oversight of specific programs. We should not take a ``meat axe'' approach nor should we yield our power to the executive branch, and so, therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

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

I know the gentleman has an honest appeal here in terms of doing what is best for his district, but here is the problem, and we are running into this problem consistently. We ran into it yesterday. More and more people are looking for a source of money, a piggy bank, if you will, and the IRS seems to be one of those targets.

What I would say is that with this money that he is choosing to take, he would subsidize the relocation of rail for private rail companies. This gentleman's amendment proposes to fund these subsidies by taking critical funding from the Treasury. As I mentioned, we have been hit again and again, and it seems as though they are going after the salaries and expenses side of the budget. Pretty soon, you weaken that organization to a point that they cannot do their job. We need to obviously be able to collect and deposit revenues into the Treasury. That is one of their major roles.

This amendment cuts the Treasury's departmental offices by $10 million. That is salaries, that is people, that is personnel that they need. This would significantly damage U.S. global economic and national security interests and cripple the Treasury's ability to fight the financial war on terror, and some of that money may have come out of that. We do not need to go there. We do not need to malign the money that is being used to fight the war on terror.

This amendment also cuts the IRS' business systems modernization program by $20 million, ``BSM'' as it is commonly called. While it appears to some that this account is $45 million above the President's request, it is actually just a restructuring of the IRS accounts. In fact, BSM is currently funded at the request level, which is already $30 million below last year's level. Cutting this $20 million will force IRS to lay off many of the 317 personnel who are currently working on the BSM project, delaying all work on the modernization of the IRS legacy systems.

So it may seem harmless to take $20 million here and $10 million there, but pretty soon, you rob Peter to put something in Paul's lap. Unfortunately, this leaves us at odds with how we balance the entire bill in the end. We have to have money for this organization, the IRS, and the many areas in which they work. The most recent one added was the involvement in terrorism.

So I would strongly object to the gentleman's amendment on that basis, I understand this is a program that he is very fond of and certainly favorable to, and there are a number of people from Illinois that I believe are on the same side. However, I must object, and I must oppose the amendment. I just wanted to add one other point.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's interest on this and other important issues addressed in the appropriations bill, and I would be happy to work with the chairman, Chairman Davis, as this legislation moves on to conference.

As the gentleman noted, funds are tight in the current budget climate, and we were unable to provide funding for all the new initiatives proposed this year. But as a Member of Congress and a Federal employee, I understand the importance of modernizing the Federal Government's retirement systems and look forward to working with Chairman Davis as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

First, let me state that of course I do not condone companies relocating for tax purposes overseas. But I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because I think it is a bad policy, and I will explain.

From a taxation point of view, this language is not necessary. Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions in the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new section to the Tax Code which treats U.S. companies that complete a corporate inversion transaction after March 4, 2003 as domestic U.S. corporations for tax purposes.

Second, Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions by enacting a contracting ban which is still in effect today. Given these two congressional actions, I don't see the need to further punish the people who work in the U.S. for these affected companies.

Companies registered offshore employ hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers, a fact that I believe is lost in these debates. It is easy for Members to vote for amendments such as these until they realize that constituents in their own districts are employed by these very firms and depend upon these firms for a paycheck.

Additionally, I am opposed to the amendment because the U.S. Government enters into billions of dollars' worth of contracts with private sector companies each year. As a proponent of good government, it is essential that competition for these contracts be allowed to go to the company that is the most effective and the most cost efficient.

Agencies under the jurisdiction of this act that would be affected include numerous safety agencies related to aviation and transportation, and they would not have access to many of the best products available ranging from security software, thermal imaging devices, handsets and engineer and data services for critical infrastructure.

This amendment is not necessary. It makes government contracts less effective by restricting competition, and it hurts U.S. workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Davis from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to my friend, Chairman Davis.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to accept your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all of the gentleman's amendments be read.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, economic development initiatives, EDI grants, are targeted grants designed to address local economic development needs. As representatives of these communities, it is our responsibility to ensure that these needs when present are addressed.

While I appreciate the gentleman's efforts, I cannot help but feel they would be better directed at real earmark reform, including authorizing bills, not the meaningless attack on an individual project.

I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Chairman, I have made my comments pretty clearly. I oppose the amendment. I believe that Mr. Wicker spoke eloquently. I also think that Mr. Olver made it pretty clear that this is not the resolution that we would look for on this particular situation.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, every one of these projects relative to the gentleman's comments, must relate to the eligibility of the CDBG program. Every single one. We don't waive the requirements.

In fact, to show how worthwhile we think these projects are, for the very first time this year the committee is imposing a 40 percent match for each of these projects. We think that each EDI is so meritorious that with just a little bit of CDBG seed money, these organizations and cities will be able to leverage other funds for the same goal. They do, and it does work.

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

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

To oppose the amendment.

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

The Transportation, Community and System Preservation program is authorized to fund a wide variety of transportation projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system in the U.S., reduce the impact of transportation on the environment, and other purposes.

The purpose of this project, and soon I will yield to Mr. Walsh, in question is to rehabilitate several roads in Monroe County, New York to bring them up to acceptable standards and improve safety. These are eligible activities for the program, as defined in law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).

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

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

The gentleman claims this money should remain apparently in the hands of the bureaucrats downtown, and I would ask him what do bureaucrats know about economic development or constituent needs in Arizona or Detroit or Yucaipa, California? The gentleman from Yucaipa, California, has already spoken eloquently on the needs of the constituents in the City of Yucaipa.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

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

The location of a TRACON has absolutely no effect on controllers' ability to manage aircraft or the capacity or capabilities of any airport. This is because TRACON controllers do not have to have visual contact with aircraft as today's radar technology allows it to see the aircraft.

I understand that the gentleman is concerned about the complexity of the airspace in south Florida and the risk of hurricanes and terrorist attack on south Florida.

The fact is the busiest airspace in America is in New York, Chicago and Atlanta, served by TRACONs located off the airport site that have been consolidated with other facilities.

Although I agree that the airspace in south Florida is complex, the New York airspace, with three major airports located within 10 miles of Manhattan, is far more complex than south Florida. And any one of the three major New York airports serves more traffic than all of the Miami area airports. However, a total of 15 airports in this area receive services from a single TRACON located on Long Island.

Consolidation would not affect continuity of operations during a terrorist attack or during a catastrophic hurricane. There are contingency plans in place to respond to such situations. The backup for the Miami, West Palm Beach facilities is a Miami en route control facility. In fact, the colocation of the West Palm Beach TRACON to Miami actually reduces the risk that a storm could disrupt service. This is because the Miami TRACON is built to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, unlike the West Palm Beach TRACON.

Just a couple of examples of consolidated TRACONs. A single TRACON on Long Island serves 15 airports, including LaGuardia, Newark and JFK and the most complex airspace in America.

The Potomac TRACON serves 10 airports. Five different TRACONs were consolidated in one facility in Warrenton, Virginia. The FAA also operates TRACONs in southern California that include 22 airports and extend from San Diego to LAX, and a northern California TRACON that serves 21 airports.

The fact is we do not have TRACONs at every airport and we don't need them at every airport, not with the technology that we have. We do not need all the TRACONs that exist today.

FAA's only mission is to ensure safety, and there is absolutely no safety issue associated with consolidating these TRACONs.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I rise in strong opposition to the language amendment overturning a HUD regulation concerning the number of units that are placed under lease.

The provision would allow the PHA to essentially create more vouchers for the program than the 2 million vouchers that exist currently. Today the program and the cost of the program is based on the number of units under lease.

If public housing or project-based section 8 units are being demolished, the additional vouchers provided are only for the units actually occupied prior to demolition. The department budgets each year for the number of occupied units it expects to convert from public housing units to vouchers.

Units that are not occupied now are not provided a voucher, since the program only provides a subsidy for those families that are currently receiving a subsidy in public housing.

To provide PHAs with the authority to create vouchers where there are no tenants to protect is simply a back-door way of creating new vouchers for the program. This cost is not budgeted for in this bill and would be significant.

Approximately 38,000 units in public housing and project-based section 8 are assumed to be demolished in 2007. Of this number, 21,000 are occupied and eligible for a voucher. The cost of these tenant protection vouchers would be $149 million. That is provided for in this bill. If vouchers were made available to those 17,000 units not occupied, as well as those already budgeted for, the costs will skyrocket in 2007 by an additional $122 million and increase every year thereafter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

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

I understand that you must have a speaker that wishes to speak at this moment?

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that one thing I don't quite understand about what is taking place here, but I want to get to the bottom of it. Having to provide a subsidy for empty units, and that is what you are doing, with a budget that only assumes least unit cost or least unit risks being unable to assist real families, this will, I think, unfairly, shift section 8 dollars to certain regions of the country for what are now vacant units. And this would be to the detriment of the distribution of those funds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, this creates an entitlement for vacant units. These funds are for tenant protection, not unit protection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me try to clarify a few things. First, there are no safety or security impacts associated with the proposed rule on foreign investment. In fact, this rule does not change the statutory requirements that limit foreign investment in the U.S. airlines.

For example, U.S. airlines will still be U.S. airlines. U.S. citizens must be in actual control of the airline. U.S. citizens must own 75 percent of the voting stock. U.S. citizens must comprise two-thirds of board membership.

The proposed rule explicitly walls off any foreign investment proposal that would affect safety, security or defense in any way, including any impact of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF program. No foreign investors will have a say when it comes to safety, security or national defense.

In addition, any control afforded to a foreign investor, such as marketing or product quality, can be revoked at any time.

Further, in response to concerns raised within the last several months,

DOT met with General Schwartz, Commander of USTRANSCOM and Robert Jamison, Deputy Administrator of TSA, to double check, I should say to triple check that these agencies have absolutely no safety or security concerns regarding the proposed rule. They did not. The rule itself will strengthen the airline industry in the U.S. The industry will be able to attract additional capital to improve their financial position. Some have indicated that the rule will result in fewer jobs. This makes no sense at all. Strong U.S. airlines result in a stronger aviation community that is ready, willing and able to hire more people, more pilots, more flight attendants, more mechanics.

Further, any open skies agreement between the U.S. and the European Union is predicated on this more modern investment rule. The rule, coupled with a U.S.-EU open skies agreement, will preserve and create new U.S. jobs and expand markets. It will increase the number of international flights operated by U.S. carriers and increase the number of foreign travelers to the U.S. It will also increase service to small and medium cities. This is because international markets must be supported by the robust feed traffic from the non-hub markets.

I am for a strong competitive industry that creates new American jobs, ensures better service, and is a boon for the economy, all without weakening security.

I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield the remaining time in my allotment to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to cover a couple of points. This protectionist amendment is an enormous step backward for the U.S. airline industry. It denies U.S. airlines the ability to compete with the European carriers on a level playing field. It stops the Department of Transportation from modernizing rules governing investment in U.S. airlines.

The DOT rule does not relax congressionally set limits on foreign investment in the U.S. airlines. U.S. citizens must still control, as I mentioned, 75 percent of U.S. airlines voting stock and comprise 66 percent of their board of directors.

The DOT rule safeguards U.S. airline security and safety. It strictly prohibits any foreign influence over security, safety, or the civil reserve air fleet, or CRAF, program.

The DOT rule will create new U.S. jobs and improve service to small- and medium-sized communities. Further delay and opposition to the DOT rule is a blatant attempt to kill U.S./EU. open skies. Eight months is enough time for review.

At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for any comments he might wish to make.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this rule just came in today, and I think everybody is aware of this. The administration understands that an amendment may be offered today to prohibit the use of funds to implement a final rule regarding the foreign investment in U.S. airlines. The proposed rule would facilitate a landmark agreement with the EU that would provide significant benefits to consumers as well as the domestic passenger and cargo airline industry. The administration has worked with Congress to address these concerns with the final rule and recently extended the final comment period by an additional 60 days. The administration, as you must know, strongly opposes any amendment that would prevent the Department of Transportation from finalizing its rule.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I am very willing to accept the amendment. I think it is a good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

My understanding is that the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw the amendment, presuming I will work with you?

If you withdraw the amendment, I am prepared to work with you any way that I can, but the amendment would have to be withdrawn, so I am just asking for a guarantee that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Well, it states it in reverse, and that is my question. I thank you for the layout of the information here. You certainly raise an important issue, and I pledge to explore the issue with you further.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask now for a ruling from the Chair. I think that would be the appropriate step.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it is changing existing law. The amendment proposes to state a legislative position. And so I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.012

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5576, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5576, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I am pleased to present the House H.R. 5576, the fiscal year 2007 Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill, which was passed out of committee by a voice vote on June 6.

As you know, this is only the subcommittee's second year with its current jurisdiction, and I believe the product before the House is worthy of strong support. It is a fiscally responsible bill funding high priority programs and eliminating Federal funds for other programs that are duplicative or ineffective.

I am aware of a number of amendments that would seek to undo these decisions, but I want people to know we made these decisions by looking at program performance, effectiveness and a balance of other priorities in the bill.

The bill before us is at our 302(b) allocation of $67.8 billion in BA, and provides total budgetary resources, including transportation obligation limitations and mandatory spending of $139.7 billion, an increase of $8.5 billion over last year and $1 billion over the request.

Many of the increases over the budget request are due to House rule mandating certain funding levels for highways, transit and aviation programs; restoring CDBG funding in the bill; and some scoring differences between CBO and OMB.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to salute the hard work of the subcommittee

members, both on the majority and minority side of the aisle. The bill before us is the product of numerous budget hearings and thoughtful input of each member of the subcommittee, and they deserve to be saluted.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge the role the subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, played in assembling this bill. I consider Mr. Olver a partner in creating the product before you because his input has been invaluable. I believe this bill is stronger because of the input that Mr. Olver has provided.

And without much fanfare, I would like to give a quick overview of what we have been able to accomplish under our allocation.

In transportation, we have met all of the guarantees for surface transportation and safety and aviation infrastructure as included in SAFETEA-LU and Vision-100. For FAA operations, we have provided funds for 132 net new controllers, plus an additional $16 million over the request for safety inspectors.

I realize there will be a lot of attention paid to Amtrak today, tonight, and perhaps even tomorrow. The bill provides $900 million, the same as the budget request, and $394 million below last year's enacted level. The bill continues our tough stance requiring Amtrak to reduce losses and achieve operational efficiencies with close supervision by the Inspector General.

I would emphasize this is not the ``Amtrak'' bill. There are a number of priorities in this bill and any amendment seeking to just slash other accounts, accounts that everyone will agree cannot sustain the cuts proposed by these amendments, is just plainly irresponsible.

The subcommittee had two priorities to meet for HUD in 2007. First and foremost was the full funding of Section 8 renewals. Failure to fully meet these commitments would have resulted in thousands of families losing their assistance and becoming homeless. We have met those needs.

Our second priority is to restore, to the maximum extent possible, the formula funding for cities and towns across America through the Community Development Block Grant. As you know, the administration proposed to cut this program by $1 billion which was funded at $4.2 billion last year. I am pleased to say we were able to fully restore funding for CDBG for fiscal year 2007.

To achieve this, however, the committee had to do a broad sweep of duplicative and lower priority programs throughout the Department, including boutique programs that have typically been funded by reducing the amounts in the formula CDBG program. It is never easy to stop funding a program once it starts getting Federal funds, but we have to make these decisions in order to meet our main funding objectives.

For the IRS, the bill provides $10.5 billion, $110 million below the budget request and $63 million below last year's enacted level. This level of funding will allow the IRS to maintain current services with some hard choices. I should warn everyone that further cuts to the IRS would severely impact their ability to meet their mission. I also note we took the first step to restructure the IRS accounts to more closely align with their core missions, taxpayer services and enforcement.

For the Judiciary, the bill provides sufficient funding to maintain the current services of the Federal Judiciary, including rent and personnel increases.

For the District of Columbia, we provided the budget request for Federal payments to the District for tuition assistance, court costs and school improvement. We were able to fund the Navy Yard Metro Station through FTA's New Starts program, and provide $1 million for the Central Library improvements. As for the District of Columbia's local budget, the bill appropriates the budget and financial plan by reference, carries many of the same general provisions of the past, and includes no new riders.

We restored funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program to $227 million, slightly more than last year. Executive Office of the President programs are funded at the requested levels.

All in all, after much hard work and discussion, I believe we have a balanced bill before us. No, we didn't fund every program, but we did fund the higher priorities under our jurisdiction that will deliver the best results to the most people, and that I believe is our responsibility. Also, we have included Member priorities in this bill.

I would especially like to note that Member projects in this bill are less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill. I will repeat that: Less than one-third of what they were in last year's bill, demonstrating yet again the committee's commitment to earmark reform and the fact that it is real. Each project was a part of the budget request or authorized under an existing program in law, and requested by a Member of Congress as being important to the district and the people they represent.

This is a fiscally sound bill, scored repeatedly by CBO. There are no gimmicks, no date changes, no unreal savings.

Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a balanced bill and I urge the Committee's support for it.

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

Yes, I most certainly will work with the gentleman from Illinois on this project.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond.

I share your concerns. And I thank my colleague for raising this very important issue today. He correctly points out that the bill includes $227 million for HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. The subcommittee has funded this important program again this year, even though the President requested that the program be transferred to the Department of Justice at a reduced level of funding.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Nevada as this bill moves forward. We can work together to make sure that the issue of methamphetamine and other drug trafficking as it relates to Nevada is forthrightly addressed in the final budget for this account.

I recognize the difficult situation that some PHAs across the country are facing. Providing flexibility to housing agencies while at the same time ensuring that HUD can effectively manage its programs is a no-cost solution that, if administered properly, will ensure continued service to low-income families. However, at the same time, NYCHA and other PHAs need to make sure that they are taking full advantage of the current flexibility that exists between the public housing operating and capital funds. As this process continues, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure now to yield to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for whatever time he may wish to consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would just say that I agree to work with you on this. I appreciate your bringing it forward. And we will also work with the FMCSA on this issue. So thank you.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, following the full committee amendment process, CBO's scoring of our bill resulted in slightly more than $20.7 million in savings.

This amendment will place this funding in the IRS operations support account, which was reduced by $50 million below the President's request.

I understand that this has been cleared with the minority, and therefore I ask for the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for Amtrak by gutting and eliminating critical programs, including safety programs, resulting in reductions in force at several agencies.

This bill was put together by making some very difficult decisions to balance a wide variety of critical needs from some very diverse programs. The amendment would undermine the difficult work done by the subcommittee by haphazardly making unrealistic and undisciplined cuts throughout the bill.

It would cut the Office of the Secretary of Transportation by 25 percent. That is well below the fiscal year for 2006. This will result in reductions in force for OST and will impact mission critical operations, including security planning as well as coordination and response efforts.

These areas proved critical during last year's hurricanes, and we have now entered the hurricane season again. It would eliminate the critical rail safety research programs under the Federal Railroad Administration. This is a little confusing, because several years ago it is this research program that pinpointed the problem associated with Amtrak's brakes on the Acela and found the solution and allowed Acela to get up and running again.

The amendment would severely reduce funds for the Federal Maritime Commission and the Surface Transportation Board, resulting in RIFs for both of these agencies, and cutting the Federal Buildings Fund by $560 million will leave the fund without the resources it needs to build critical, secure crossings on our Southern border with Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, it would not strengthen the Federal buildings against threatening terrorism attacks. Let me repeat this. Vote for this amendment and you are voting against building border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border and against funding to secure the Federal buildings against terrorism.

Let me go a little further and explain that these cuts would completely eliminate GSA's new construction of six border stations at the crossing at McAllen, Texas, at El Paso, Texas, Santa Teresa, New Mexico, Columbus, New Mexico, Calexico, California, and Nogales, Arizona.

In addition, the amendment would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration Montgomery County, Maryland Project, as well as remove the delivery facility in Anacostia for mail sorting for the Federal Government, something that is sadly needed, and with the threat of anthrax and other deadly substances in government mail.

Repairs and alterations to Federal buildings will be stopped or slowed, repairs and alterations that are needed to secure government workers and the general public from possible terrorist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, cutting border security and funds to protect Federal workers against terrorism is irresponsible. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about how much time is left on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the subcommittee, Todd Tiahrt from Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, again I would like to inquire about the time remaining for our side.

Mr. Chairman, by the way, let me thank Mr. LaTourette for suggesting the 20-minute situation divided by two. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to accept the amendment. Your amendment, I think, is a good one.

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

I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. We all want better fuel economy. However, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment for a number of reasons.

There are times when throwing additional money at a problem is not going to solve it, and this is one of those times. All that is needed here is time.

Giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration more money will not speed up the process whereby fuel economy standards would be raised. Even if Congress passed a bill tomorrow ordering NHTSA to raise fuel economy standards, it would take a minimum of 9 months for a rule to be proposed and finalized. This is because NHTSA would need the detailed product plans from every major auto manufacturer on every model they make before they could draft such a rule, and assembling these documents takes time.

Moreover, under law, there would have to be a reasonable comment period of 90 days so the public could weigh in on any proposed rule.

Finally, any proposed rule would have to be cleared by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, and that is just the beginning.

Auto makers also need time, which they are provided under the law, to retool their product lines to comply with the new regulations. For instance, the auto makers are already developing their product lines for the 2010 model year.

As I said at the beginning, this just takes time, roughly 27 months worth of time. NHTSA has already been tasked with studying the feasibility and effects of reducing the use of fuel for automobiles. This report, required by section 773 of the energy bill, is due to Congress later this year.

I would also like to point out to Members that this committee has already significantly increased funding for NHTSA's CAFE office over the past several years. The office, which was funded at $60,000 in fiscal year 2001, was funded at almost $1.3 million last year. Giving NHTSA's CAFE office an extra $6.7 million would likely result in the money simply being unspent.

I am unsure what benefit will be gained by the public if the CAFE office were to be given $6.5 million that they realistically cannot spend. Certainly, it would not result in fuel economy standards being raised faster, which I assume is the gentlewoman's ultimate intent.

So I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The account he seeks to increase is transit research, not fuel research, and I appreciate his sentiment, but we already gave more than the guarantees, and the guarantees are killing other programs, both transportation and everything else. Repeatedly I see already that the Treasury continues to get hit over and over.

We provide a greater level of funding in 2007 to address two problems. We needed to fix a problem with SAFETEA-LU since the authorizing committee identified more projects and activities than were provided for under the guarantees. We covered that problem and found the money for the fix in order to keep the program going. We added these funds to cover some initiatives important to other Members.

The gentleman proposes to add money for alternative fuels research. However, most of that research is funded out of DOE and NHTSA. This account is for research into transit, as I repeated, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I have always felt very strongly about Mr. Miller and his ideas. I do have a problem with this particular amendment. I oppose any amendment to continue the Brownfields Program, which is recommended for elimination as part of a broad sweep of lower priority programs. We must reduce or eliminate these duplicative programs in order to free up the funds for the highest priorities in HUD, which is, among other things, assistance to extremely low-income families and restoring funds for community development.

Last year Congress recognized the lack of use of this program and rescinded $10 million in unused prior-year appropriations. The money wasn't being spent.

The activities of the Brownfields Program remain, as they have been, eligible uses for CDBG funds. States and communities can use these funds for this purpose if they choose to do so.

In addition, there are nearly two dozen Federal programs that can help communities in one way or another to assess, clean up and reuse brownfield sites.

EPA's Brownfield Program has awarded 883 assessment grants totaling $225.4 million, 202 revolving loan fund grants totaling $186.7 million, 238 cleanup grants totaling $42.7 million.

By comparison, HUD's program has been extremely slow and funds are often used as a loan loss reserve, rather than as grants for reconstructing sites.

HUD grants are a tiny fraction of project development costs. They represent just 2.3 percent of the total development costs on average. For each HUD dollar, there was $28 in private and $12 in State and local funds committed with an average of five State, local, and private sources of funding or financing for each project. HUD funding is not critical to any decision to proceed with a project or makes any difference to the completion of a project.

This amendment, and we are being hit already early in title II, this amendment cuts the IRS's Business Systems Modernization Program by $15 million. While it appears this account is $45 million above the President's request, it is actually just a restructuring of the IRS accounts. In fact, BSM is currently funded below last year's level. Cutting this $15 million will force IRS to lay off many of the 317 personnel. Let me repeat that: 317 personnel who are currently working on the BSM project, delaying all work on the modernization of IRS legacy systems.

So it is for those reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5576 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 865, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

an amendment by Ms. Harris or Mr. Davis of Alabama regarding funding for Public Housing Capital Fund, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

an amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts regarding funding limitation on tenant-based section 8 vouchers, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain highway projects in Illinois;

an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain highway projects in Illinois;

an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain highway projects in Illinois;

an amendment by Mr. Kucinich regarding certain IRS enforcement activities;

an amendment by Mr. Al Green of Texas regarding funding for the HUD- FHIP program;

an amendment by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California regarding funding for the HUD Community Development Fund;

an amendment by Mr. Thomas regarding section 209 of this bill;

an amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding the funding level for tenant- based section 8 vouchers;

an amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding funding level for the Public Housing Capital Fund;

an amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding the funding level for the HOPWA program;

an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas to change the funding availability for the HOME downpayment assistance program;

an amendment by Mr. Jindal to make eligible certain individuals for HUD project-based rental assistance;

an amendment by Ms. Harris regarding funding levels for the HUD Elderly and Disabled program;

an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding eligibility for HUD elderly housing;

an amendment by Ms. Slaughter regarding the funding level for HUD lead-based paint activities;

an amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding Election Assistance College Poll Work Program;

an amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts regarding section 325 of this bill;

an amendment by Ms. Waters regarding funding for HUD section 108 loan guarantee program;

an amendment by Mr. Shays regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board;

an amendment by Mr. Shays regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board;

an amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding funding for HIDTA program;

an amendment by Mrs. Maloney regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board;

an amendment by Mr. Wynn regarding funding level for OPM administrative expense;

an amendment by Mr. Baird regarding funding limitation on transportation projects that fail to comply with section 1928 of

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to accept your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us fully funds the renewal of Section 8 vouchers. Additional funds, especially ones at the expense of critical programs, are simply not necessary. The cost of Section 8 vouchers are remaining constant and in some markets are actually decreasing.

As such, this funding level will not only maintain the current level of vouchers, but also provide funds to restore vouchers that may have been lost in recent years.

The proposed reduction to the Working Capital Fund leaves a funding level that is not sufficient to support HUD's existing needs and will cause delays in critically needed efforts to modernize antiquated legacy systems in such areas as HUD's core financial systems and FHA mortgage program systems.

More importantly, the funds of the Working Capital Fund are the funds that ensure that HUD is able to make Section 8 payments on time. Ironically, cutting this program to boost Section 8 will have a very real and negative impact on the Section 8 program.

So therefore, I must urge a no vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

HOPE VI was intended to demolish 100,000 units of severely distressed public housing units, and the program has accomplished that goal. However, there is currently $80 million in unobligated funds going back as far as 10 years-plus. And get this, an additional $2 billion remains in unexpended balances. That is money.

These unobligated and unexpened balances mean the program will be spending out for years to come. As of the end of fiscal year 2005, only 23 percent of all projects have been completed. We need to focus on completing what has already been approved, not adding to the already large backlog of unfinished work. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 531 of the bill. We included this correcting provision at the request of the D.C. Education Office to assist them with some funds management.

Unfortunately this provision creates an advance appropriation and, therefore, violates the budget resolution. I ask for the amendment's adoption.

I would be happy to accept the amendment with the provision that it would be at the $750,000 level.

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

Mr. Chairman, first let me state that I am a supporter of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. I think it is apparent from the recommended level of funding in our bill.

Mr. Chairman, the President requested that this program be transferred to the Department of Justice, a Department not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, at a level of $207 million. Given the wide support for this program, we retain the oversight of the program in the TTHUD subcommittee and increased funding above the President's request $20 million to that $227 million level.

I would support my colleague's amount if this were not a zero-sum situation. But this increase has to come from another program, in this case the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. NARA has a projected $12 million shortfall right now, even if they receive full funding for fiscal year 2007. A hiring freeze goes into effect on the beginning of July. A cut of $12 million could result in serious staffing issues at the National Archives.

Additionally, there is a projected reduction in research hours and hours open to the public and other measures that have to be taken even with full funding. A $12 million cut would impose further reductions on operating hours, something that I oppose; and I urge my colleagues, therefore, to oppose this amendment.

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

Well, the whole point is that it isn't just one thing; it is two or three things that are the problem. Already, they are down $12 million. Then there is the possibility that yours would strike some more money.

Finally, what do they do about the servicing? How do they even get along with that situation when they know they are going to lose some people. They are going to lose some people.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his interest in this area. I certainly agree that to the extent we can, we should promote and encourage physical activity as a way to prevent chronic health problems. I would just say that I look forward to working with you on this matter and make sure that these efforts lead to some decent results.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 252, line 2 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5522, the fiscal year 2007 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.

First, I want to extend my best wishes to Chairman Kolbe for all of the work that he has done. He has done some tremendous work, extraordinary work. I think he has been an invaluable resource for the foreign operations end of things. So I just want to say, in addition he has always been receptive, been very responsive to Members' input on a very, very difficult bill.

Mr. Kolbe, I really appreciate having you around. I also want to wish you the very best in the future in whatever you decide to move into.

I also want to commend the ranking member, Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Kolbe and Mrs. Lowey, I think, have been a great team for this particular committee. I convey my best. You are not leaving obviously, Mrs. Lowey, so can you stick around. But I convey the very best to her and the work that she has done.

We found common ground on a variety of issues, and together I think we achieved some pretty important results. I look forward to continuing that in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee staff for the hard work that they have performed in addressing the many issues in this bill. It is a testament to them that the bill runs through the process so smoothly every year despite the number of demands and challenges that they face.

Once again, Chairman Kolbe, his staff, Ranking Member Lowey have crafted an excellent bill that balances all of the many priorities the United States has around the world. Our foreign assistance fosters democratic and transparent governments, promotes human rights and helps millions of people in need.

While less than 1 percent of our entire annual budget, foreign assistance serves as a main pillar of our foreign policy and is an integral part of our national security.

As always, assistance to the Middle East is the central part of this bill. It provides the full amount that the President requested for Israel, including both economic and security assistance.

It also provides $40 million for refugee resettlement in Israel. Just as importantly, it lays down the groundwork for this program in the future. It also provides no direct funding for the Hamas-infected Palestinian Authority.

However, it does provide limited humanitarian assistance under strict guidelines and checks to ensure absolutely no funding reaches Hamas.

Additional funding for Lebanon, Egypt and other Middle East countries is important to support reform efforts. It is particularly important to note the continued funding for the Middle East Partnership Initiative which further reforms the region.

Mr. Chairman, I am also particularly pleased that the bill provides $62 million in economic assistance to Armenia. I look forward to working with Chairman Kolbe to ensure that the final bill includes adequate funding for Armenia. This funding is especially important since Turkey and Azerbaijan continue to obstruct transportation and infrastructure routes into and out of Armenia with the intention of forcing Armenia into economic isolation.

The bill maintains parity in U.S. military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is critical to the overall policy toward the South Caucasus.

There is also no chance in section 907 language with respect to Azerbaijan. The bill includes other important funding, such as $2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which provides foreign assistance to specific countries if and only if they meet specific criteria. It also includes substantial funding to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible bill. It is the result of significant oversight. It is fiscally sound and it focuses funding on the priorities that will advance our interests. For all of those reasons, I strongly support the bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this bill on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong objection to H.R. 5449, a bill to modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration.

I currently serve as the Chairman of the Appropriations Sub-Committee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD and other agencies. This legislation today would put an enormous strain on my committee's resources and force all programs under my jurisdiction into greater budgetary peril.

Simply put, a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5449 could cost the FAA $1.9 billion over the next 5 years. The FAA would be forced to divert funds from critical safety initiatives--such as air traffic control modernization--to cover the cost of sky-rocketing controller salaries.

I understand that air-traffic controllers provide a valuable service to the flying public and that they work hard to ensure safety and security. I also understand that due to the unique ability of their union--an ability that is not available to every other federal employee union--they have negotiated some of the highest wages in federal service.

The average air-traffic controller earns $173,000 per year, and their salaries have gone up 75 percent in the past 8 years. The top 100 NATCA union members earn an average salary of $197,000.

How does this compare with other federal employees? Well, quite well I would say. These controllers make more than Members of Congress ($165,200), Cabinet Secretaries ($180,100), and almost as much as Supreme Court Justices ($199,200) and the Vice President of the United States ($208,700).

The comparison is even more striking when we weigh their salary levels against other critical safety, security, and health professions.

In my home area of Detroit, an average NATCA member makes $118,490. Compare that to the average firefighter ($42,100), police officer ($48,770), or registered nurse ($59,380). And, this kind of pay disparity is not unique to my home area, but is consistent across the Nation.

At a time when our federal workforce is stretched at home and abroad to protect our Nation, there is no justification for air traffic controllers to enjoy unparalleled salary hikes, especially when our military personnel, homeland security officials, first responders, and other government employees do not receive the same treatment.

Some may try to indicate that a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5449 would be a ``free'' vote to give to the unions. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

If H.R. 5449 is enacted, it will effectively render the new FAA/NATCA control null and void, and cause FAA costs and salaries to spiral out of control. The new NATCA/FAA contract would be superseded by the previous contract, reached between the Clinton Administration and NATCA in 1998, and the continuation of the 1998 contract would cost tax- payers $1.9 billion in the short-term, and $3.8 billion in the long- term.

It should be obvious that a cost of $3.8 billion tax-payer dollars is far from ``free.''

A vote for this bill is not about protecting workers wages and stopping the FAA from slashing controllers' salaries. To be crystal clear: the FAA has offered to protect the compensation of each and every current controller. A new contract would only apply to new hires, and not affect the salaries of existing controllers.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5449--a bill that would ban the FAA from reigning in out-of-control controllers' salaries and cost tax- payers and my committee billions of dollars. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this financially reckless legislation that will set a dangerous precedent for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, next Monday we will honor all that have made the ultimate sacrifice serving and protecting our country. I rise today to honor our disabled veterans still with us that have sacrificed so much.

On the last Monday of May every year, Members of this body celebrate Memorial Day by walking in parades, making speeches, and talking to active and retired military men and women. We tell them how much we appreciate their efforts and thank them for their services. We do this proudly as they deserve our respect and admiration for serving this great country.

Currently, American troops defend our freedom on many different fronts and veterans are at the forefront of our legislative priorities. The number of veterans coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas increases daily and it is our responsibility to ensure their needs are met. While our veterans may be out of harm's way, our responsibility to them remains.

I am introducing legislation to further our commitment to our disabled veterans that have served our country with valor. Currently, every year Congress enacts a cost-of-living adjustment for veterans' disability benefits. We have done this every year since 1978. In fact, both Congress and the President assume this COLA will be enacted every year.

My legislation, the Veterans Disability Compensation Automatic COLA Act, would simply make the COLAs for veterans' disability benefits automatic each year. Veterans should not have to depend on Congress adjusting their disability benefits every year. Social Security and Medicare have automatic COLA adjustments. Our veterans deserve to have that same security. Furthermore, because Congress and the President assume this increase in their budget every year, my bill has no budgetary effect.

I am also pleased to enter into the Record letters of support from the Disabled American Veterans as well as American Veterans (AMVETS). These veterans service organizations support this bill to assure veterans the COLA they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot and should not assume future Congresses will act to adjust veterans' disability COLAs every year. I ask my colleagues to join me to ensure our veterans get the benefits they deserve without having to rely on a superfluous yearly act by Congress.

Disabled American Veterans,

Washington, DC, May 22, 2006.

Hon. Joe Knollenberg,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Knollenberg: On behalf of the 1.5

million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and

its Auxiliary, I write in support of the measure you are

introducing today, the Veterans' Disability Compensation

Automatic COLA Act.

Your bill would protect the benefits of sick and disabled

veterans and their dependents by preserving its intent and

beneficial purpose. Specifically, the bill would

automatically increase the rates of disability compensation,

dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), and the annual

clothing allowance by the percentage of increase in the cost

of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index without

precluding any other increases deemed necessary in the

future.

Other benefits such as automobile and housing grants, and

burial and plot allowances, for which Congress has regularly

enacted legislation to adjust these benefits have had their

value seriously eroded. Unless the amounts of disability

compensation, DIC, and clothing allowance are periodically

adjusted, inflation diminishes the significance and

effectiveness of these benefits.

Again, I want to thank you for your continued effort to

protect and enhance the benefits and services of veterans who

are disabled by virtue of their selfless sacrifice and

service to our nation, and their dependents.

Sincerely,

Joseph A. Violante,

National Legislative Director.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a valuable and respected

member of Michigan's business community, Mr. R.R. ``Pete'' Ebbing. Pete is retiring from the day-to-day operations of Detroit Edge Tool Company effective today.

Since July 1, 1955, Pete Ebbing has been instrumental in the growth of Detroit Edge Tool Company, a leading supplier of machine ways, rails, knives, and other precision machine parts to industries globally. On June 24, 1885, the company was incorporated in the State of Michigan and is now the oldest machine knife manufacturer in the world. During the first half of the 20th Century, Detroit Edge was a major supplier of industrial knives and associated equipment. However, in the early 1960s the company began to evolve and manufacture machine tool components such as hardened and ground, precision detachable ways and rails.

Throughout this evolution, Pete Ebbing was there working to ensure the company remained successful. The company's headquarters remains in the city of Detroit and has other plants in southeast Michigan.

In fact, Detroit Edge Tool Company has been in the Ebbing family for more than 80 years, spanning four generations. Two of Pete's six children, sons Ray and John, now manages the business together with a highly skilled and experienced staff of employees.

I have known Pete for nearly 40 years and am proud to call him a friend. Pete's dedication and vision for Detroit Edge Tool Company has service set the course for the next generation and I wish him luck in the future.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 138 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''