Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have spent much of this year uncovering and correcting shortfalls in this country's treatment of our uniformed heroes. Reversing negligence is one thing, but today we address the reprehensible and willful act of docking a soldier's pay for being injured while answering the call of duty. This literally is our government adding insult to injury.

These men and women left their homes and families, they paid with their time, bodies, and health for the security of our fellow citizens. Without them, we are defenseless. Thanks to them, we are the most powerful Nation in the world.

To save the injured, that is not enough, and to ask them to pay once more is shameful at best. They volunteered to become part-time and full-time professional soldiers out of love of this country, and it is high time our leaders started to show some gratitude. We owe them the best medical care, respect, honor, forthrightness, and, at the very least, we owe them the payment they were promised.

I urge my colleagues to restore honor to our injured heroes and, in so doing, restore honor to the Nation they fight for by supporting the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, we watched two African American coaches make history in the Super Bowl. This week, Ty Scroggins made history again, guiding Louisville's Central High School to the Kentucky 3-A Championship, becoming the first African American football coach to win a Kentucky State title. As alma mater to Muhammad Ali, Central is no stranger to athletic success. Still, it took a total team effort, led by Darrell Taylor's inspired rushing, to give the Yellow Jackets their first championship.

As the first predominantly and historically black high school to win the Kentucky Gridiron State trophy, their landmark win is a victory for a Commonwealth proud of overcoming adversity as we progress toward real equality. The school that began 125 years ago as Louisville Colored High School now sends 92 percent of its students to college. Renowned for economic excellence, successful magnet programs, and unique entrepreneurial opportunities, few schools so thoroughly prepare students for careers in business, law, technology, and medicine.

Four decades ago, Central gave us The Greatest. Today, the school continues to give us greatness. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Central High School, Coach Scroggins, and Kentucky's 2007 3-A football champs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the most profound step forward in energy policy that this country has taken in 30 years.

In those 30 years, we in America have seen our dependence on foreign nations increase exponentially. The same issue which has caused this great nation to be beholden to others is draining the wallets of our fellow citizens while warming the earth at an alarming and unnatural rate.

And so, I am incredibly proud to be a part of the Congress that isolated the source of those problems and responded resolutely, in a bicameral, bipartisan way. When the energy bill is fully implemented, a gallon of gasoline will take the average American nearly 30 percent farther, our need for foreign oil will plummet by a colossal 4 million barrels a day, energy bills will drop as appliances grow more efficient, and thanks to an unprecedented investment in homegrown, renewable, clean fuel, the prospect for real, safe energy independence is closer than it has ever been.

Mr. Speaker, this is more than simply an energy bill, this is America's declaration of energy independence, and I urge my colleagues support it.

Madam Speaker, how many times is President Bush going to hold the same press conference, hammering away at Congress just because we're meeting our responsibilities under article I and restoring Americans' faith in the future? Doesn't he understand that the American people chose to put Democrats in control of Congress for a reason?

All year long we have been working to take our Nation in a new direction and restore that faith in the future. In some instances, the President has joined our efforts. We worked together to fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase the minimum wage, and make college more affordable for millions of college students. Unfortunately, in almost every other instance, President Bush has stood in the way of real progress. He refused to help us provide quality health coverage for 10 million children. He rejected our efforts consistently to change course in Iraq. And he has threatened to veto our appropriations bills that truly prioritize our domestic needs.

Madam Speaker, President Bush has every right to be frustrated by his lack of accomplishments, but he has nobody to blame but himself. He needs to stop standing in the way of progress.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, we must acknowledge that America's continued success will not be ensured unless we equip the leaders of tomorrow with the tools they need today. This means cultivating not just the most privileged and brightest students but the students who grow up with disadvantages. We must nurture the potential of all our children from the very beginning of their lives. We don't have one mind to waste or one citizen to waste. We need everyone to have the greatest ability and preparation to live productive, meaningful lives in our society.

For a million students, Head Start is the answer. For those who work hard but remain stuck just above the poverty level, the reauthorization of this program will give their children a chance to soar. I am proud to say that just as we did by increasing the minimum wage, doubling college assistance, and providing health care to uninsured children, this Congress continues to put working families first.

With nine in 10 Americans reporting no increase in income the last 6 years, cynicism has replaced hope for too many. We are in a position to restore faith in the future. And as we pass the

reins of our Nation to future generations, we must invest in that future by guaranteeing every child a chance to succeed.

I know that in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, thousands and thousands of young children have gotten adequate preparation for schooling that they might not otherwise have gotten because of the wonderful training they received in Head Start. It is not just a head start; it is a very strong foundation to success in education and success in whatever careers our young children may select.

So I'm proud to stand here in the House of Representatives, the people's House, and urge my colleagues to support a program which will help ensure that the people we represent are able to enjoy the prosperity and the happiness that our Founding Fathers hoped they would have.

With that, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Head Start and begin restoring faith in the future for millions of American families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and it's a pleasure to be here with my distinguished colleagues from the class of 2006 talking about the issues that confront this Congress and this Nation and also some of the issues that we have in dealing with the basic functioning of government, which is one of the reasons we're here tonight.

And I'm so happy that my colleague from Minnesota mentioned the President's statement that we were wasting time and doing many of these things. I can only think when I heard him make that statement, did he really think that maybe the Founding Fathers were wasting their time when they wrote the Constitution? Because the first thing they did when they wrote the Constitution was write article I, which established the Congress of the United States and vested all legislative powers in the Congress of the United States, not some of them, not those dealing with certain subjects, but all of them in the Congress of the United States.

And the reason they did that was simple. They had escaped. They had revolted to escape a dictatorial form of government when one person was the decider. We've had one person who thinks he's the decider in the White House, and we've had members of both parties who have been in the White House and felt that they were the deciders, but that's not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

They envisioned a representative democracy in which people that they sent to decide how the government would affect their lives would make those decisions, and that's why they put article I first. That's why they created the executive branch in article II of the Constitution, and that's why when we act, whether it's to provide health insurance for kids, whether it's to provide resources for water projects throughout the country, whether it's to provide for the Defense Department for our soldiers, our brave men and women fighting overseas, for our veterans, whether it's when we try to create a new energy policy for this country, when we try to provide a sound and high- quality education for everyone in this country, that we're doing it pursuant to the powers, and not just the powers but the responsibilities that the Founding Fathers vested in this very body.

So, when the President says we're wasting time, I would beg to differ, because if we're wasting time, then the Founding Fathers wasted time when they wrote the Constitution.

And that's why it's so important that we focus not just on what we do here but why we're doing it and the fact that we are actually realizing the direction and the decisions made by those great men 220 years ago when they formed this Constitution that determines how we operate in this country and that has served this country so well for so long.

So I look forward to the next few minutes of discussion, and once again, I'm so proud to be here talking about how we're putting article I to use for the benefit of the American people.

I thank the gentleman, and I have a button for the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, and I look forward to giving it to her. I thank her for endorsing the type of emphasis that we're trying to place on this very important discussion of the balance of powers in this country.

You know, there's another element to this whole question, a balance of powers, and it really is reflected in the debate over the SCHIP program. Because while we debate, on the one hand, the actual legislative powers and

how we might enforce those through the courts and so forth, there's another competition going on, and it's the competition that goes on in the media and in the public dialogue. And here is where there is an inherent advantage for the executive branch. And I think part of the reason why, over the last few decades, the executive branch has been able to accumulate far more power than the Constitution and the Founding Fathers envisioned was because it is much easier for the President of the United States to use the bully pulpit, as we call it, and dominate time and the news media and the television, and it's much harder for the Congress to do that since we are a body comprising 535 men and women.

But what's interesting about it is that when you use the bully pulpit and when the President uses the bully pulpit, you hope that he uses it in an honest way, and, in fact, in this debate what we have seen is a performance that has actually been very insulting to the concept of a pulpit, I think, because what this President has done is used his bully pulpit, his media access, to deceive the American people about what we are doing and what he intends to do.

For instance, he is constantly saying that the proposal, the legislation that we passed would enable families making $83,000 a year to access the SCHIP program. No families making $83,000 were authorized to make it or, in fact, ever found access to the SCHIP program. The only way that a family making more than double the poverty level can get entrance and access to the SCHIP program is if the executive branch gives them a waiver. In fact, the State of New York asked the President for a waiver. He declined it. So for him to then say under this program people making $83,000 would be eligible for SCHIP is not only not true, it is deceitfully dishonest. And, actually, if you talk about what he has done, he has the power, which we delegated to him, he has the power through the executive branch to waive some of these requirements.

And that goes back to the interesting thing about this entire debate. In 2004 during the Presidential campaign, President Bush actually campaigned for an expansion of the SCHIP program. He loved the SCHIP program. He applauded it when he was Governor of Texas and he wanted to expand it. Now what does he do? Because it's not a Congress dominated by his party, he wants to change his perspective. He's changed his perspective as to whether the States should have waiving powers, which he wanted the States to have when the Congress was run by the Republicans. Now that Democrats control the Congress, he wants there to be Federal standards which he controls.

So this is not just a battle of power internally in the Congress and through the courts but also one that we have to fight in the media. We are at a disadvantage, but I hope it is discussions like this and people who are not afraid to be outspoken and point out dishonesty and deceit when they see it that will help us even the playing field in terms of convincing the American people that not only does this Congress have the power, by virtue of article I, to make all legislative decisions, but it also has the moral foundation and the integrity to do what's right for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2258) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, to amend the definition of an eligible not-for-profit holder, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to S. 2258 into the Record.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2258, a bill to extend programs under the Higher Education Extension Act of 1965.

In addition to extending the current programs under the Higher Education Act for 5 months until March 31, 2009, the bill also makes a necessary technical correction to the College Cost Reduction and Access Act with respect to nonprofit lenders. This language will ensure the designation of a nonprofit lender will go to those that Congress intended.

During this Congress we have made significant commitments to our Nation's students and families by putting resources in the hands of those most in need. H.R. 2669, as passed and signed by the President, does more to help Americans pay for college than any effort since the GI Bill at no new cost to taxpayers.

Specifically, the legislation provided a landmark investment of $20 million in additional funding for Pell Grants, reductions in the interest rate on student loans, and the creation of programs to help students manage debt, as well as encourage individuals to pursue public service.

Providing this critical funding is a large part of our efforts to increase access on affordability to higher education. The next step is to work on policies that further support access and affordability, such as campus-based aid, TRIO, GEAR-UP, teacher education and the other programs that make up the Higher Education Act.

Additionally, we realize that millions of Americans are deeply worried about whether they can afford to send their kids to college or how they will be able to pay the bills while also paying off substantial student loan debt. Looking at how the Federal Government can assist in addressing the rising cost of college will also be a key part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

I look forward to working with Chairman Miller and the other members of the committee to complete work on the Higher Education Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will close by once again strongly encouraging my colleagues to support this important legislation, thanking the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Education and Labor, House Administration and Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2744) to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to clarify the eligibility requirements with respect to airline flight crews, and that the bill be rereferred to the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, when President Bush vetoed a bill earlier this month that would provide health care coverage to 10 million American children, he said the spending was excessive. The bipartisan bill invested $35 billion more in children's health over a 5-year period. Three weeks later, President Bush announces that he needs $196 billion to fight the war in Iraq over the next year. If $35 billion for children's health is excessive, what exactly is his request for the war?

I know the President believes that Congress is his personal ATM machine, but article I of the Constitution says different, and we will not rubber-stamp his funding request for the war.

As we have in the past, Democrats will continue to exert pressure on the administration to change course in Iraq so that we can begin to bring the

troops home. There is no military solution to the war; yet the Bush administration refuses to put pressure on the Iraqi Government to enact the political reforms that are necessary to bring about stability in the country.

While we push the administration to change course in Iraq, we also remain firm in our conviction to pass the children's health care bill that covers 10 million American children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota, the distinguished president of our class, for yielding and thank him for the superb job he has done in leading us through this wonderful year that we are spending as new Members of Congress.

I want to start this segment by actually reading the first few words of the Constitution of the United States because too often I find that, as I go around the country and go around my district, the people have lost sight and I think many Members of Congress have lost sight of exactly what the Founding Fathers did 220 years ago. I think we are all familiar with the preamble of the Constitution, and it starts with those wonderful words ``We the people,'' those incredible words that actually go to the heart of what we are about as a democracy:

``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

Now, following those words, following that brief preamble, it says in article I, section 1: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''

I think it's amazing to think back to what was going on in those formative years of our Republic in 1787. The country had just rebelled against a monarch in England, and when they were establishing a government that would reflect the hopes and dreams of the people who had gone through that incredible war of revolution against England, they decided to create a government in which the ultimate power would rest in the people. That's why they said at beginning of the preamble, ``We the people.'' They created in article I the representative body of government that we sit in today. They did that because they didn't want one person being the decider of everything that affected their lives. They wanted to vest the power to govern in themselves through their representatives in Congress.

And so we sit here as successors to that incredible legacy. And it is not only our power to do that vested by the Constitution in article I; it is our responsibility. We have an obligation to govern on behalf of our citizens, ``we the people,'' as reflected in our representation here.

I think those of us who were elected for the first time last November know that, yes, we were elected partially because of the war in Iraq, but we were also elected because the people of the country decided that they really wanted to make sure their voice was heard in Washington. They thought their voice was being ignored. They said this is our government. We are going to change it by sending people there who will listen to us and will put our desires into action through the legislative process.

So I thought it would be wonderful to call attention to the fact that article I does impose, again, not just these powers, but it also imposes responsibilities. And that's what we came here to do, and we recognize that. We want everyone in Congress, both parties, to share in this acknowledgment of what our responsibilities are under the Constitution. I am so proud to have with me tonight and so proud to serve with wonderful people who are committed to the same ideals.

I would like to recognize Betty Sutton from Ohio, one of our wonderful new Members, to elaborate on article I and what we are doing to realize and to fulfill our responsibilities under article I.

I thank my colleague. She has expressed it very well, and that is exactly what I know she has done in our 10 months here.

It also gives me great pleasure to recognize our colleague, another new Member from the great State of Florida, Congressman Klein, and I know he has some thoughts on this issue as well.

I thank the gentleman.

I would now like to recognize another colleague, another member of the freshman class and the first president of our class and also a member with me on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where I think we perform one of the major powers and responsibilities that article I vests in the Congress: the function of oversight.

I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

And now, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce one of our more illustrious new Members, Mr. Hall from New York, who has done a great deal in his term of office to uphold article I.

I want to thank my colleague.

Before I introduce another one of our esteemed colleagues from the class of 2006, when you talk about your observations after having gone to Iraq, and many of our colleagues have gone, sometimes I think people get the impression that we're just acting like any other pundit talking on television. But, in fact, what you're doing and what the other Members of our body have done when they go to Iraq is to fulfill their responsibilities under article I. Because article I says that Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defense, it says to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and so forth, to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, this is the militia. But all of these powers and responsibilities are given to the Congress not just to say okay to the President, the Commander in Chief, but to make the decisions as to what the appropriate levels of support for those various responsibilities are.

So when we talk about going to Iraq to assess the situation there, to talk to our troops, that is not just to go for a matter of curiosity or journalistic curiosity, it's actually to fulfill our responsibilities because we are responsible to make decisions as to what appropriate levels of support are.

And with that, I would like to call on my distinguished colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I thank the gentleman. And it's interesting because, again, you can find a foundation for all these things we're doing in these very words in article I, because one of our responsibilities is to provide for the general welfare. And when we're talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about the general welfare of the people.

I would like to return to our distinguished president, who has a distinguished military record of his own, since we've been talking about our efforts with regard to Iraq and the military.

I thank my distinguished colleague from Ohio. It is kind of interesting, because since we are going back to the kind of legislative history of the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers which do constitute, I guess, whatever official legislative history there was, one of the things that James Madison wrote in article number 51 was, he said, ``But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department'' which would be the executive or the Congress ``consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.''

So when you talk about the efforts of the White House, in this particular case, to withhold information that the Senate requires, and we issued subpoenas, which would be our constitutional means of requiring the information to resist the encroachments of the other branch of government, we have been stonewalled on a number of occasions. And this is the type of activity that the Founding Fathers anticipated. They gave us the constitutional means to resist those encroachments. We need to continue to recognize those and to use them whenever we have to.

Now, my colleague from Florida has been standing there for quite a while.

I would like to recognize my colleague from New Hampshire with a question. And that is, we are about to engage in a fairly contentious series of votes concerning appropriations measures. According to article I, section 8, one of the most important powers that this Congress has is the power of the purse. As a matter of fact, in another Federalist Paper, number 58, James Madison said that, ``This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress from every grievance, and from carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.''

As we look forward to our deliberations and our discussions of the appropriations process, I would like the gentleman from New Hampshire to discuss our responsibilities in that regard.

I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire. I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York, with this segue; that we all come from different parts of the country. Isn't it amazing that the Constitutional Convention in its wisdom, the Founding Fathers, I think recognized that even if you had an all-powerful executive, that person, that man or woman could never know the needs and the priorities of every nook and cranny of the country and that you coming from New York or from New Hampshire or Ohio or Florida would all assimilate all of our needs and priorities into a budget and a priority list for the Nation. That is why he vested this type of power in the Congress and not in the executive branch.

Mr. Speaker, we have just about 5 minutes left, so I thought all my colleagues would like a last chance to talk about what article I means to them and where they think we in this Congress can do our best work in furtherance of the goals of article I.

I thank the gentlewoman. Finally, our president.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I thank all my colleagues. It has been a wonderful hour. I think the dialogue we have had tonight not only discusses an important issue, but also reflects the greatness of the Founding Fathers because it created this body in which we can have this type of discussion. So I thank my colleagues once again. We will have many more discussions like this.

Mr. Speaker, 220 years ago when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution of the United States, they chose to create the United States Congress in its first article. That was their way of ensuring that we did try to form a more perfect Union.

Over the last few decades, Presidents and Congresses of both parties, through action and inaction, have allowed our system of checks and balances to go quite askew. Many of us believe that it has reached a tipping point. That is why we will over the next few weeks and months talk about article I, the article of the Constitution which vests all legislative power in a Congress of the United States elected by the people.

The Founding Fathers did not want to see peoples' lives be decided by one decider. They vested their power in the people through their representatives. Over the next few months, we hope to help reassert the authority that the Founding Fathers envisioned for this body.

Mr. Speaker, last week Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who led our forces in Iraq when the vast majority of the American public had yet to turn against the war, emphatically agreed with those of us who criticized the invasion and occupation from the start. In calling the situation a ``nightmare,'' Lieutenant General Sanchez referred to the ``unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership.''

But from what I have seen from my seat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with all due respect to the Lieutenant General, he is wrong. The administration isn't failing to implement the strategic leadership needed to bring peace to the region and protect our young men and women risking their lives in Iraq; they are refusing.

David Walker, U.S. Comptroller General, said that widespread corruption is robbing Iraq of the resources to develop the government and is funding the very insurgency we are fighting. Rather than working to end or mend this catastrophe, the State Department has instructed its officials not to cooperate. Instead of using the ``Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq'' report to rectify the problem, they classified it retroactively, giving the impression that honest information is seen by this administration as politically embarrassing rather than constructive.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of how they see it, they owe it to the American people not to ignore factors that endanger our soldiers, jeopardize Iraqi stability, and squander upwards of $18 billion due to corruption. In today's terms, that is 2\1/2\ years of health care for 4 million children through SCHIP. But this isn't merely a case of ignoring crucial information. Our government is actually covering up the rampant corruption, which Inspector General Bowen has referred to as ``a second insurgency.''

With article I of the Constitution, our Nation's Founders protected us against this abuse by calling for a representative government with all legislative powers vested in the hands of a Congress. By defying that mandate, the Bush administration is defying the American people. So I call on the President to return to those Constitutional principles by dropping the veil of secrecy and restoring the open, honest government envisioned by the Framers, demanded by the people, and depended upon by our soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, saying ``supporting the troops'' is one thing, but following through with actions is something entirely different. That means admitting our deficiencies so that we can correct them. For the 3,820 warriors we lost in Iraq, and for the more than 165,000 serving there today on the ground, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 734, and call on the administration to level with us and support our troops abroad.

I thank the chairman. And I also want to thank Mr. Boucher and Mr. Pence for inviting me to become an original cosponsor of this important piece of legislation.

As the only member of the Society of Professional Journalists in Congress and as a former journalist, I fully understand how assurances of anonymity put a frightened insider at ease and turn a reluctant source into an eye-opening wealth of information.

At my newspaper in Louisville, we were able to open doors for the community on several occasions due to confidential accounts of protected sources which would have otherwise remained closed to us forever. Also, at Louisville, we saw what happens when we fail to protect a source's identity. There, Jeffrey Wigand, the famous tobacco whistle-blower, was victimized by threats and intimidation, ultimately losing his job, his family and his home. He is considered a hero today, but for many the lesson from that episode was, if you have incriminating information that will benefit the American public, just keep it to yourself.

The first amendment to the Constitution demands the right to free press. Now it falls on Congress to help facilitate that freedom pursuant to our authority vested in us by the first article of the Constitution. And speaking of article I of the Constitution, the article vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. It doesn't ask us to ask the White House first whether it approves of what we do. It actually imposes on us, not just the right, but the responsibility to legislate in the best interests of the country. And that's what we are doing with this legislation.

Without the Free Flow of Information Act, we, as a country, will be in the dark on certain issues, conscientious journalists will be imprisoned, and potential sources will remain tight lipped.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial measure.

Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush vetoed a bipartisan bill enacted pursuant to the authority vested in Congress by article I of the Constitution that would provide private health insurance to 10 million low-income children here in America. His reason, the bill was too big.

While the President refuses to fund health care for our Nation's low- income children, he has no problem sending billions of dollars to Iraq with absolutely no questions asked. Today alone, the President will spend $300 million funding the occupation of Iraq. With that money, we could insure 246,000 low-income kids. Over the next month, the President will spend a whopping $9 billion in Iraq, which would allow us to insure 7.4 million kids.

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, congressional Republicans have approved blank checks for the President to send billions to Iraq, and now they are concerned about $35 billion for improving the lives of 10 million low-income children? It is time they reevaluate their priorities and join us next week in overriding President Bush's veto.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act.

Because America's Founders were freshly freed from the shackles of British oppression when they formed this Nation, safeguards against the consolidation of power into the hands of a few can be found everywhere in the Constitution, beginning with article I; 220 years later, we still must strive for those checks and balances in order to form the more perfect union the Founding Fathers envisioned.

For nearly 30 years, 1978's Inspector General Act provided much of the oversight required for our government to function as the Forefathers imagined, but today, some Inspectors General would rather impede oversight than conduct it. What else should we expect when we have no protections from the protectors?

We have unaccountable appointees in nearly every executive Department and agency, and many serve not to prevent corruption but to preserve it. These are not cases of individuals merely failing to fulfill their job descriptions, but actually instigating the waste, fraud and abuse the American people pay them to ward off. These unchecked appointees have hindered valid investigations, siphoned tax dollars for personal pleasures, and refused to uphold accountability for fellow political appointees. Honest civil servants who have dedicated their lives to improving our government are victims of intimidation, threats and termination. And despite these blatant offenses, our hands are tied. There is no line of defense for the American people.

We have gone far astray from the noble aims of this Republic. And let me be clear, this is not a simple case of a few bad apples. The abuses within the Inspectors General offices were invited by the cracks in a failing structure, and they will continue to grow unless we, in this body, take steps to fix the crumbling construction.

The Improving Government Accountability Act begins to correct these weaknesses and in so doing fulfills the intent of the Inspector General Act of 1978 and once again upholds the integrity of this Nation's proud creation. The Founders were very clear from the first article of the Constitution in which they granted all legislative powers not to an executive with a consolidated power, but to the Congress.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in utilizing the authority to preserve the checks and balances that our Constitution's crafters held so dear.