Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong, strong support of this very important bill. It is important in so many ways because it meets so many of the needs of our Nation, and it represents every year one of the significant milestones of the session. It represents that more so this year than almost any other.

And in saying that, I want to recognize the full committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and congratulate them on what I think is not a small point, and that is that we will, as of the passing of this bill, have completed the work of the Committee on Appropriations initially here in this body.

That is important to the American people because it ensures for them, in an organized and reasonable manner, some transparency in order for us to really understand what the priorities are going to be. And as we go forward and focus more in conference and have discussions and debates with the other body about what the funding priorities are to be, the fact that we have gotten our work out of the way at this juncture is very important.

Secondly, I want to specifically recognize the chairman of the full committee for fulfilling a commitment to the American people to do something about the deficit. This appropriation process recognizes that we needed to symbolically, and maybe otherwise, make real commitments to ourselves and to the people of this Nation to reduce our spending habits. And in this

process we have made that strong statement, or will have made that strong statement in the body.

Now, I also want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and my neighbor, the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their work on this bill and the staffs of the committee for the great work they have done on this bill. This particular bill represented a unique challenge because for the first time the bill includes funding for highway transit, aviation and Amtrak, as well as the Department of the Treasury, IRS enforcement, and Housing and Urban Development. In addition, the bill also provides funding for the District of Columbia.

The needs of all of these competing programs are staggering, and the chairman and the ranking member really have done a noble job, as well as the staffs on both sides of the aisle having done a really noble job of trying to listen to the needs of all Members.

Let us talk about what this bill accomplishes. The bill increases highway spending and funding for the FAA to help make our roads and skies safer. I am especially pleased at the commitment in this bill for airport improvement, $3.6 billion and $104 million for essential air services. I come from the 32nd largest rural district in the Nation. This is a key, key component. The bill also includes funding to hire and train 595 new air traffic controllers. I hope to avert some potential problems that we may have in that human resources area.

In terms of housing needs, the bill provides funding for section 8 vouchers and project-based rental assistance. Importantly, this bill rejects an administration proposal to undermine the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program. CDBG is critical to our local communities, and this bill preserves the program in its current state.

I also want to highlight the contributions this bill makes in the war against drugs by providing funding to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the National Antidrug Media Campaign. The work achieved by the Media Campaign, in conjunction with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, is incredible and greatly contributes to our efforts to keep kids from experimenting with drugs.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for allowing me to speak. This bill is not perfect. No bill ever is. No appropriation bill ever is. It moves the process along. In putting this bill together, I know the chairman faced a $3 billion shortage in transportation guarantees and overall a $1 billion shortage with the inclusion of all these additional programs. The gentleman has met that challenge in fulfilling some basic structural needs to move it along, and he has met many other needs; and I wanted to congratulate the chairman.

On Amtrak, let me say this. I recognize there are negotiations and decisions to be made. We need to move it further. We need to begin the process of reforming Amtrak. We need to get realistic, or more realistic, about what that Federal subsidy needs to be. But in this bill the fact that the chairman has targeted 80 percent of ridership is a pretty good foundation piece, and I really respect the decisions the chairman had to make and how he made them.

For my constituents, and those of us on the lines that are most dependent upon Amtrak use, this bill ensures, as these negotiations go forward, that the essential services we need will be maintained. But that is not good enough, Mr. Chairman. We have to make sure that in going forward, we are able to bring about changes and reforms in Amtrak, changes that have been talked about for more than a decade.

And to Mr. Gunn at Amtrak, and those people who run Amtrak, as one who has worked with him in the past, I am deeply, deeply disappointed in their failure thus far, frankly, of bringing about meaningful proposals, other than asking for more money. It puts those of us who are Amtrak allies in a distinctly disadvantaged position. Because other than fighting over money, we do not ensure any strengthening of the system, or any increase in the vibrancy of the system.

I am going to vote for and support this bill. I probably will end up supporting some other amendments that will help move the Amtrak debates further along. But we cannot get to the point that we need to unless the people who are running the system get more interactive with us and propose more of the changes that we need in order to finally resolve the longstanding problems of that system.

Again, Mr. Chairman, our chairman has done a noble and terrific job. His staff has as well, as has the staff of the other side. And the leadership on the other side, I want to congratulate them for that and vow that we will continue to work together to make improvements where we can.

Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended to the entire paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will acknowledge up front I do it rather reluctantly, because I am a huge proponent of the national rail system and recognize up front the need for some subsidization, fair and responsible and reasonable subsidization, as we do in other transportation routes; and a lot of speakers have addressed that issue and that point.

But just as the last speaker pointed out the inefficiencies in the system, in the process both at Amtrak and, frankly, how the Federal Government has provided oversight, I think that passage of this amendment represents a premature move to acceptance of those inefficiencies at a point, a critical point, in negotiations that we cannot do that. Facts are facts, and we have been asking for Amtrak to reform itself for a number of years. We have not gotten much of a response. In fact, we have gotten resistance. And the inefficiencies in the system continue to atrophy downward.

How it really impacts on people, in my district, just outside the northeast corridor, not part of the corridor, because the tracks are not owned by Amtrak, there is a continued deterioration; and there is no Amtrak plan, no Amtrak plan to resolve those issues, putting at risk an awful lot of people. I know what the chairman is trying to accomplish in this particular piece of legislation is force Amtrak back to the table to talk about what needs to be maintained, what is critical infrastructure, what are critical lines of connection that have to be in this; and if we simply just say we are going to go on with business as usual, we continue to promote the atrophy within the system.

Now, I think at some point in this process, many of these lines that are eliminated in this particular bill are reinstated before this bill becomes law. But we ought not to do it just willy-nilly; we ought not to just give it away. We need to force some people to make some tough decisions. We need to force some people to live by their commitments of the past, which they have not thus far. I think this is one of the few pieces of leverage that the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and this subcommittee will have as we continue to try to find a way to get to the answers.

Now, we have gone from zero to now $1.2 billion in this bill. That is a real commitment to Amtrak. It is still, I would suggest, short of where we need to end up. But let us not just end up there by dealing away those funds; let us end up there by making sure that we bring efficiencies to the system.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in full and strong support of this amendment. I agree with the comments of colleagues in support of this amendment. I know that our great chairman is working very diligently and hard to make sure that what I consider to be a mistake does not indeed happen. I think we all need to focus on a number of points.

One of those points is this was decided by somebody at OMB in an effort to do a good thing, which was try to save some money; but it was not well-thought-out. It overturns the intent of this body and the intent of the other body a couple of years ago. We ought not let that process continue.

This is not just about New Yorkers. This is about all of us. This is about the commitments we make. There were 40,000 volunteers who went to the site. They were from all over the Nation. We need to honor that commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago we passed on the floor here an amendment banning the slaughter of wild horses that had been sneaked into the omnibus bill by a substantial bipartisan vote.

This amendment I offer today is a supplement to that amendment, and one that we have sought a vote on, an up-or-down vote, for several years in this body. For that reason in particular, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for affording us this opportunity.

The amendment essentially would end the use of taxpayer dollars to enable and subsidize foreign enterprises, largely operating in opposition to the vast opinion and support of United States citizens, and in fact the majority of States have outlawed the slaughter of horses for human consumption; and yet this process continues on.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of misinformation spread about this issue. The opposition will say this amendment will lead to an increase in the abuse of horses, or horses running wild in our streets. Such statements are not true, and I want to offer some facts.

First of all, each year 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country for human consumption in Europe and in Asia, not here, where they are sold as a delicacy.

Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. Misstatement number one, that slaughter is the same as humane euthanasia, it is not, Mr. Chairman. Slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia administered by a veterinarian. Euthanasia of horses is administered by lethal injection, whereas slaughter is administered by unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this is administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering before death, and that is after these horses have been transported in excess of 1,000 miles in the most inhumane conditions perceived.

Misstatement number two, that if this legislation is successful, we will

cause an overpopulation of horses. Passage of this amendment will not cause an overpopulation of horses, since each year the numbers are this, about 690,000 horses die in the U.S., many of which are euthanized by licensed veterinarians.

Slaughter represents only 1 percent of the horses that die each year, and this would not result in overpopulation of horses as some have suggested.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply this: Americans do not profit from slaughtering horses. Horses are not bred in the United States for that purpose. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and foreign companies make money off the sale of the meat. This amendment simply says that the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for the salaries and the work of USDA inspectors ought to stop, and those resources ought to be committed to making sure the food supply and the food chain here in this country are fully protected.

Let us stop this practice, a practice that flies in the face of generations of precedent here in Congress and strong opposition by the American public.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me quickly respond to some of the information that has been put out there.

First of all, on the cost end of it, CBO said already this is a cost- neutral proposition. In fact, it is my contention that it will give the USDA extra resources to do the job of protecting the American food chain.

Secondly, we talked about the failure of a lack of a hearing. We looked for a hearing for 2 years. That necessitated bringing this legislation.

Finally, if we are simply going to get into a debate over which organizations support it, there are vastly more organizations, some of the most preeminent experts in the horse industry who support this legislation, including Congress's top veterinarian, Senator Ensign, who is introducing a counterpart bill in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, let me quickly answer my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) by saying 2 things. When Ferdinand, the great horse champion, was sold for slaughter, he was marketed as ``eating an American champion.'' There is a distinction there.

Number two, I would ask how many zebras, how many cows do we know the names of? We know the names of many horses, and the fact is horses are not raised in this Nation for human consumption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

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

I just simply say, before I recognize, that the gentleman raises some interesting points; and I would hope that the authorizing committee could go to hearings in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Before I recognize my final speaker to close, Mr. Chairman, let me just point out if it is about the bottom line, it is about making sure USDA inspectors inspect the American food chain and not foreign food chains.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that I give voice to the important issue of stem cell research. This is not an issue that anyone takes lightly. Life is precious in all forms, and it is important to do all that we can to ensure issues surrounding life and quality of life are given the highest priority.

Millions of Americans suffer from debilitating diseases like Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and a host of other diseases that reduce the quality of life or cause loss of life. Stem cells derived from embryos have shown tremendous promise in the fight to rid society of many of these diseases. In 2003 alone there were 1,681,339 deaths from diseases that could benefit from this research.

Many couples across America struggling to have children benefit from In Vitro Fertilization, a process where embryos are created to provide couples with the potential to have children. In many cases, couples have left over embryos that would be destroyed. This legislation simply provides the opportunity for those embryos to save lives already being lived.

Lives being lived by people like Tambrie Alden from Glens Falls, NY. Tambrie has had Juvenile Diabetes for 28 years. She goes through 10 daily finger sticks a day and has worn an insulin pump for 10 years. Each day brings a different battle for Tambrie; she must constantly monitor the highs and lows of her condition. Tambrie has had over 200 laser eye surgeries due to Juvenile Diabetes, which also continues to attack her organs ability to function properly.

On Sunday, Tambrie turns 47. She celebrates every birthday to the fullest, because when she was diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes, the doctors told her she would not live past 43. Tambrie lives on borrowed time and worries about losing her sight and not being able to see her grandchildren grow up. She knows that embryonic stem cell research probably won't help her, but she prays the promise it holds will ensure that her grandchildren don't have to suffer as she has. That's why we are here today, to make sure that people like Tambrie can live their lives to the fullest.

This action is limited to promoting responsible research with embryos that would be destroyed otherwise. Congressional oversight on this ethically sensitive issue is the right balance to ensure that our nation remains diligent in our approach to medical research, while taking important steps to improve the quality of life for those who suffer from debilitating diseases.

The bill establishes strict standards for use of fertility clinic embryos. First, written permission is required of the couple donating the embryo. Second, there can be no financial compensation, much like organ donation. Finally, the legislation requires the National Institutes of Health to establish strict oversight for the scientific community to ensure ethical guidelines are adhered to.

Embryonic stem cell research is a new form of research in the early stages. I am fundamentally opposed to cloning embryos or creating embryos for scientific research. This legislation does not a ow cloning, it merely ensures that embryos already created and unused serve a higher purpose than being destroyed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee in a colloquy dealing with some language in the committee report requiring the EPA to fund a National Academy of Science study.

Mr. Chairman, we have already heard that there is language requiring such a study to determine the effectiveness and cost of a large dredging operation of hazardous waste sites, many of which are contaminated with PCBs.

I would point out that our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who engaged in a colloquy a little earlier, stated that there was strong support for this project. Well, this is a project that has been debated for 20 years. In some ways that is an overstatement of that support.

I represent the affected area, and in fact it has been an extremely difficult process for my constituents. However, we all agree that further delay of the project is in no one's best interest. As you have already clarified, the report language, Mr. Chairman, in no way is intended to delay, stop or otherwise disrupt the cleanup planned for the Hudson River slated to begin in the summer of 12006.

Further, the EPA has reviewed the language and found no provision that would require them to disrupt the Hudson River project in any way. Is that your understanding, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that kind offer and clarification. Let me just say that it has long been my position that we should not debate past decisions no the Hudson River but look to the future in the region and focus on protecting those communities most directly affected by the cleanup project.

What has been consistently overlooked is the fact that dredging will have a heavy impact on people's everyday lives. This is especially true for the residents of Fort Edward, New York, who will be hosting the dewatering site in their community.

As the representative of that area, I want to continue to strive to uphold their interests and remind others that we are talking about real people and real neighborhoods, and not just political points for some special interest groups.

For that reason, I want to thank you for a separate report language provision which was inserted at my request to address the burden the Hudson River cleanup project is placing on the people of Fort Edwards and reiterate my concern that the EPA do all it can to provide assistance to the town.

It is my hope that we can jointly work towards that end and meet that important goal as the appropriation process continues.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to get briefly to the point.

We can all have our differences as it relates to this issue, but as my colleagues have pointed out so appropriately, surreptitiously last year, snuck into the omnibus bill, is a piece of legislation that many of us have disagreement over. We all agree in this appropriation process that that is not the way Congress ought to go about doing its business and, worse yet, that legislation overturned decades, indeed generations of Congressional policy.

Now, we can argue the substance and the differences as to whether this is economically feasible and right, and whether this is humane or not, but the fact of the matter is it was surreptitiously snuck in, it ought not to have happened, I believe it violates policy for more than a generation and 30 to 40 years of Congressional intent. We ought not to let that happen. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Saturday, April 9, 2005 marks a tragic one- year anniversary for Army Specialist Keith ``Matt'' Maupin and America. Spc. Maupin, better known as Matt to his friends, went missing one year ago and is the only American soldier to be unaccounted for. His courage and valor are unquestioned and our prayers are with his family and friends as they wait daily for word on his whereabouts. The community of Batavia, OH has not forgotten their brave soldier, but we must all remember Matt and pray for his safe return.

Our brave men and women fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the world sacrifice so much. Beyond their own personal safety, they also sacrifice seeing their wives, husbands, parents and friends. They miss their children's first steps, soccer games and special moments. There is no way to repay the debt we owe them. But we can do the next best thing and honor them through actions. Tell them and their families how grateful we are for their sacrifice and most importantly, bring all of our troops home.

On Saturday, April 9, 2005 lets take a moment to remember Spc. Maupin and all of our American heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) be removed as cosponsors of H.R. 227. I am the sponsor of H.R. 227, and their names were added in error.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in support of this resolution, a very important resolution introduced by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

I think we are at a critical period of time in this Nation's history, and it comes a couple of days after one of the more significant, what you would call victories or symbols of what the American military presence is about and what its results are. That is, that we pride ourselves in having the best educated, the best trained, the best quality of people serving in all sorts of branches, in all sorts of jobs in the United States military; and at a time when the world needs this the most from us, it is very important that we maintain that quality.

I heard the prior speaker talk about the fact that this may be a dangerous place and there are all sorts of other political ideas that may be at play where you could put a recruiter on a campus or not. What I would simply say is that that is not the same argument as here. This is an argument of fairness and equity. It is an argument that says that just because somebody's political philosophy is counter to the idea that we want to have a strong

military presence in this Nation, those school administrators, who I think are way off the board in terms of their left-wing views and their antimilitary approach, ought not to be able to ban college military recruiters from doing their job because it is in the national interest that we do it. It is really in the world's interest.

So I am here to support this resolution and say that what the Third Circuit did last November again represents the judiciary trying to legislate where it ought not to do it. My predecessor, Gerry Solomon, first introduced this amendment many years back. It was that amendment that has been struck down. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and recognizing that what we do for the private sector in allowing them to put recruiters in law schools or on any college campus ought to be the same that we do for something so important and so critical as the recruitment of the best and the brightest into our military forces. I urge all of my colleagues to strongly support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an organization that has provided compassionate and dedicated service to children and families in New York for over 175 years. The Parsons Child and Family Center and their hardworking staff currently serve more than 7,000 children and their families, by providing residential and foster care services and by specializing in special education prevention and mental health services.

The mission of the Parsons Child and Family Center has evolved over time. Starting as a foster home for destitute children, this organization's primary goal today is the preservation of families. It has become a treatment-oriented institution offering intensive, therapeutic services to emotionally disturbed children. The Parsons Child and Family Center recognizes the vital role that a family plays in the upbringing of our children, and it does all it can to prevent the need for foster care placement. After a period of rehabilitation, the Parsons Child and Family Center endeavors to return these children to their families and communities as soon as possible.

The Parsons Center provides invaluable services to countless children and families across New York State, children in dire need of special care and assistance. The tireless and selfless work of organizations like the Parsons Child and Family Center constitutes the foundation of our nation's communities and embodies the true spirit of the United States. America's greatness is found in ordinary citizens performing extraordinary acts of kindness.

The Parsons Child and Family Center is due recognition for their work with the American family. We should honor the devoted staff of this organization, not only for the lives they touch and the families they heal, but for the example they set for us all.

I ask my fellow members of the House of Representatives to send our gratitude to the Parsons Child and Family Center for its most praiseworthy work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an extraordinary citizen. Carol Hotaling of Saratoga County, New York, along with help from friends and family, has devoted an immeasurable amount of time and effort to support our troops and has strove to promote unity in our great Nation.

Ms. Hotaling has shown her ability to bring together communities in support of our troops. She has worked tirelessly to distribute hundreds of yellow ribbons to citizens around the state in recognition of our service men and women. These ribbons help foster a spirit of unity and help convey respect and support for those who protect our freedom.

In recognition of Ms. Hotaling's continued work and support, the State of New York designated September 2004 ``Tie a Yellow Ribbon Month''. To help encourage all citizens to follow the example of Ms. Hotaling and to express their appreciation for the nation's armed forces, New York State has shown its encouragement for the continued display and distribution of yellow ribbons.

At this time, it is important that we honor individuals for fostering support and practices in tribute to the nation's armed forces. The actions of those, such as Ms. Hotaling, serve as examples to the citizenry of the United States.

I ask that the House of Representatives send its gratitude to Carol Hotaling for her praiseworthy work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an extraordinary citizen. Sally Mazzarella, of Rhinebeck, New York, along with help from friends and family, has devoted an immeasurable amount of time and effort to make her community and Dutchess County a better place to live.

Sally has exemplified selfless and tireless community leadership. She is president of the Winnakee Land Trust and serves on the boards of Families First New York and the Center for Performing Arts at Rhinebeck. In the past, Sally has served on the boards of the United Way of Dutchess County, Family and Services Inc., Hudson Valley Philharmonic, and Dutchess Housing Partnership. Since 1990, Sally has worked alongside State Senator Stephen Saland as a Constituent Services Representative working to solve the problems facing the 41st Senate District of NY.

Sally recently served as chairwoman of leadership gifts for the $2.2 million expansion project for the Starr Library. She has co-chaired the YWCA's $2 million capital campaign renovation project and the Mid- Hudson Children's Museum $2.8 million acquisition project. Sally is also chairwoman of the Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan Revision Project, a community-wide planning initiative focusing on Rhinebeck's future.

Sally has also served as chairwoman of the Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board. She has been an active member of the New York State Planning Federation and the Dutchess County Planning Federation, as a member of Hudson River Shorelines Task Force. Sally also served as a representative of the Chairman of the Dutchess County Legislature on the Hudson Valley Regional Council.

In recognition of Sally's continued work and service to her community, the Community Foundation of Dutchess County has recently honored Sally, as have many other organizations throughout the region over the years. Sally's tireless and dedicated service demonstrates the essence of what it means to be a citizen. People like Sally across the nation form the fabric of our society.

At this time, it is important we honor such individuals for their devoted and generous work, leadership, and service on behalf of their communities. As evidenced by Sally's achievements, it is people like her that make our communities better places to live.

Mr. Speaker, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 106(a)) any foreign accounting firm that audits an issuer of securities in the United States capital markets shall be subject to the same regulatory framework applicable to domestic accounting firms. The Act requires that foreign audit firms must adhere to the same rigorous standards applicable to domestic firms.

Sarbanes-Oxley also established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and directs them to conduct a continuing program of inspections of registered public accounting firms and to investigate alleged violations of the Act, related securities laws, and auditing and related professional practice standards.

The PCAOB recently approved rules under which non-U.S. regulators would be permitted to fulfill the inspection and enforcement mission of the PCAOB if the non-U.S. regulator is judged by the PCAOB to be sufficiently independent and rigorous. What concerns me is that the PCAOB might allow the Canadian Public Accountability Board to fulfill this mission. This would be a serious mistake.

The PCAOB in looking at its own structure and mission identified five factors as bearing upon the independence and rigor of the non-U.S. regulatory systems: (1) The adequacy and integrity of the non-U.S. system; (2) the system's source of funding; (3) the system's independence from the accounting profession; (4) the system's transparency; and (5) historical performance.

The first looks at the system's authority to inspect, investigate, sanction and enforce professional standards of the accounting profession.

The second assesses the accounting profession's authority over the governance and operation of the non-U.S. regulatory system. How many accountants have decision making authority? Are they appointed by government? Does the government or the accounting profession hold removal power?

The third implicates the accounting profession's control over the system's source of funds.

The fourth on transparency requires open rule making procedures and periodic reporting to the public.

With respect to historical performance--if the system is new the PCAOB will not consider this factor.

Consequently, any decision by the PCAOB to rely on a specific non- U.S. regulator should require that they pass these minimum tests. The Canadian Public Accountability Board fails these tests.

The Canadian Public Accountability Board has no direct statutory authority. It has no oversight mechanism, no transparency, and no public interest accountability. It is subject to the whims of its membership and its governing structure is comprised primarily of accountants. Most importantly, the source of funding for the Canadian Public Accountability Board is in fact the accounting industry itself.

As the PCAOB moves toward granting reciprocity to foreign organizations to help enforce Sarbanes-Oxley the Congress will be watching to make certain that the interests of the American investors and the integrity of the U.S. financial sector are protected.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to say goodbye to two of my mentors and friends, Congressmen Quinn and Houghton.

When I first came to Washington, you both helped me find my way and helped me learn the ropes in the Congress. For that, I owe you both an enormous debt of gratitude.

Jack, you taught me that it is possible to strike a balance between Republican values and labor's needs. Essentially, how to be a New York Republican in Congress.

Since you've been here, you've always had the ability to distinguish between the political and the pragmatic, and you've built your reputation as a voice of reason in this sometimes-unreasonable world.

Your constituents always came first, and if your successor can serve the twenty-seventh district of our great state of New York remotely as well as you have, they will be in good hands. Well done, my friend.

Congressman Houghton, you sir, are the epitome of the American statesman. Frankly, your many accomplishments speak for themselves, and your long and distinguished record both in business and in government guarantees you a place in the Pantheon of New York's public servants.

You have much to be proud of, but I suspect your finest hour came with passage of the Liberty Zone Act, which provided billions to help our fellow New Yorkers in Manhattan rebuild from the rubble of the 9/11 attacks. For that, all New Yorkers owe you their sincere thanks.

Amo, Jack, I wish you nothing but the best as you leave the Congress today, having done a great service to America.

Your constituents thank you, our Nation thanks you, and as you return home, finally able to spend more time with your beloved families, I wish to convey the thanks of the family you're leaving behind here in Washington.

It has been a pleasure and an honor serving with both of you, and this is one tough New Yorker who's not afraid to say ``I'll miss you''. Farewell, old friends.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

I realize we all are on our way out of town, and it is important we get moving, so I will be very brief and I will attempt not to be too provocative. But I urge the membership to strongly support this piece of legislation for a couple of very important reasons.

One, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) pointed out, FEMA money is running out and, as well, if we think about that in terms of what we need to do to make sure that we continue the momentum towards developing a safer, more secure homeland security, this bill needs to get done before we break for the election.

I recognize that there are a lot of tough choices here. I recognize that there are a lot of disagreements over where exactly we ought to be prioritizing the expenditures here, but I view this as an evolving, accommodating balance.

I want to salute the chairman of the subcommittee for his great work here. We have had our disagreements, but the chairman has always been there, and he has moved this bill substantially towards a system that I think can evolve into a system that allows the Federal Government to respond to the threats where they most exist.

We can bemoan what is left to be done, but this bill actually goes out and begins to take and continues to take substantial strides towards getting us to the place we need to be. We need to recognize that either structurally or technically or, frankly, politically in this town we may not be ready to do all the things we need to do, but this bill moves us way along the line. I want to salute the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for that, as well the ranking member on the subcommittee.

We do not agree on the first responders money as well, but this bill does important things. And as one who comes from New York, a place that was attacked, this bill needs to get passed so that New York can continue to do the great work it does to protect this Nation and that city.