Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and Mr. Dreier, I appreciate your comments. What we are attempting to do is to reestablish congressional oversight.

Congress authorizes and appropriates money, but we don't actually spend it. So when we are asking the administration, whoever it may be, Democrat, Republican, whoever, to come up here and explain some of the things that we have seen in the paper by this instrument we are talking about here, I think all of us benefit.

What basically H.R. 40 does is it puts in place a systematic mechanism for regular oversight, not only just waste, fraud and abuse, but, as Mr. Cardoza said in his opening remarks, whenever there is an auditor's disclaimer, that will trigger a hearing to hopefully ask them why they had to file a disclaimer; what is the information they didn't receive, why didn't they receive it, who is withholding it, so we can actually fix something around here for a change.

And then, of course, the third thing, those two look backwards sort of at what already may have happened. The third provision looks ahead.

Every year, as you know, the GAO identifies, or every Congress, high risk programs. That basically is government talk for programs that don't work as they were intended when they were passed by Congress. And so, when that happens, there is a hearing to identify those high risk programs into the future so that we can either fix them or abolish them.

Without getting into it, there were some 13,000 IG recommendations, Inspector General recommendations that went unattended in recent years. That is not only our fault, but it is, in my view, a dereliction of the duty of the Congress as a separate and independent branch from this or any other administration. And so what we are attempting to do, again, is to put in place a systematic, structural oversight mechanism where the House will look at not only what we are going to do, but what we've already done.

And so, again, I appreciate your comments.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Project On Government Oversight,

Washington, DC, January 13, 2009.

Representative John Tanner,

1226 Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Tanner: Thank you for the opportunity

to present the views of the Project On Government Oversight

(POGO) regarding H.Res. 40, which requires each standing

committee of the House of Representatives to hold periodic

hearings on the topics of waste, fraud, abuse, and

mismanagement. We believe that having such a systematic

approach to oversight enshrined in the Rules of the House

would greatly enhance Congressional oversight of executive

agencies' programs and functions.

As you may know, POGO is a non-partisan nonprofit that for

more than 27 years has investigated and exposed corruption

and other misconduct in an effort to make federal agencies

more effective, accountable, open, and honest.

For the past 18 months we have been engaged in an in-depth

study of the Inspector General system, examining both the law

and how the system works. We issued one report last February

on issues affecting IGs' independence (www.pogo.org/pogo- files/reports/government-oversight/inspectors-general-many- lack-essential-tools-for-independence/go-ig-20080226.html),

and are pleased to note that several of our suggestions were

incorporated into last year's Inspector General Reform Act

(H.R. 928, P.L. 110-409). We are planning to issue a second

report in the coming months regarding IGs' performance and

accountability.

One of our conclusions is that Congress needs to pay much

more attention to the work of both IGs and the GAO. Too often

reports on important issues are left languishing, unread, on

the desks and shelves of Congressional staffers. It has been

30 years since Congress created the IG system, and we believe

it was a brilliant and unique concept--to place internal

watchdogs in most federal agencies where they would both

prevent and root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and encourage

federal programs to be more effective and efficient.

However, this wonderful system can only work if Congress

pays attention to the resulting reports. Inspectors General

have no enforcement powers. They cannot force an agency to do

anything. If an agency will not fix a broken program, then it

is up to Congress to force them to do so.

Frankly, there are two problems with Congress's ignoring IG

reports--one is the more common, when the IG has done good

work and makes important recommendations that need to be but

are not implemented. The other problem is the flip side to

this--some IGs produce only mediocre work and do not

challenge their agencies aggressively enough. Congress needs

to pay attention in both cases.

For all of these reasons, we support the passage of H. Res.

40 to require each House committee to conduct at least one

hearing during each 120-day period regarding waste, fraud,

abuse, and mismanagement of the agencies under its

jurisdiction; at least one additional hearing if there are

disclaimers in any agency's financial report; and at least

one additional hearing if a program is listed as ``high

risk.''

Again, we appreciate your asking us for our views and look

forward to working with you to make Congressional oversight

more aggressive and effective.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian,

Executive Director.

Madam Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force, I want to personally take this opportunity to honor my dear friend, MSgt Robert C. Wilkins for his 26 years of dedicated service to our country. In his most recent assignment, he served as the Superintendent, Operations, Air Operations Division, Office of the Legislative Liaison, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, DC.

A superior leader, Master Sergeant Wilkins assisted me and members of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly during trips to France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Macedonia, Albania, Croatia, Turkey, Germany and the Netherlands. He performed magnificently, upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and through his efficient planning, these trips were a complete success.

Madam Speaker, I respectively request my distinguished colleagues join me in expressing our sincere appreciation to Master Sergeant Wilkins for his extraordinary service to the United States Air Force and our great Nation. On behalf of members serving on the U.S. NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation, I say we will miss his expertise and positive attitude, but most importantly, we will miss his friendship.

Betty Ann and I wish Rob, his wife, Amy and son, Robert, the very best as they face new and exciting challenges in the coming years.

Madam Speaker, during the period November 10-November 18, I led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly, NPA, meetings in Valencia, Spain and to additional meetings in Rome and Florence, Italy. The co-chair of the NPA delegation was the Hon. John Shimkus. The delegation also included, Representatives Jo Ann Emerson, Dennis Moore, John Boozman, Baron Hill, Kendrick Meek, Charles Melancon, Carolyn McCarthy, Melissa Bean, Jeff Miller, Mike Ross, David Scott and staff. The NPA delegation had a highly successful trip in which a wide range of political, economic and security issues on NATO's agenda, as well as issues involving the U.S.--Italy bi-lateral relationship, were examined.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, NPA, consists of parliamentarians from all 26 NATO member states. The NPA provides a unique forum for elected officials to analyze and debate issues that the NATO leadership discusses in Brussels. In addition to the 26 member parliaments, parliamentarians from countries such as Russia, Georgia, Croatia, and Afghanistan also participated in the sessions as associate states or observers and engaged in the discussions and debates. Through these sessions, delegates have the opportunity to learn first-hand the views and concerns that other countries have over the key security issues of the day. An invaluable aspect of the meetings is the chance to meet and come to know members of parliaments who play important roles in their own countries in shaping the security agenda that their governments pursues at NATO. These contacts can endure through a career, and can provide an invaluable private avenue for insights into each ally's particular views on an issue.

As NATO approaches its 60th anniversary summit in April 2009, the key issues on the agenda of the Alliance include the broader issue of the future of NATO and more specific issues including relations with Russia, energy security, missile defense, the conflict in Afghanistan, and emerging threats, such as piracy. Each of these issues was on vigorous display at the NPA meetings. The conflict between Russia and Georgia that played out this past August was the one issue that dominated the Valencia sessions. Many members of the Alliance expressed concern that Russia has begun to implement an increasingly assertive security policy including efforts to intimidate neighboring states, through the threat of force. There was also continued concern that Russia would use its energy supplies as a political lever to influence European policy. It was clear from our meetings that not only the United States and NATO, but the European Union as well, are concerned about Moscow's posture on a wide range of issues. There were, however, differences of opinion over how to structure future relations between NATO and Russia as well as the NPA and the Russian delegates to the Assembly. While the consensus among the delegates was that dialogue between NATO and the NPA and Russia was important and should continue, there were calls for the NPA to take some action against the Russian delegation as a show of displeasure over Russia's conduct in Georgia. As a result, the Assembly, at large, adopted a series of measures limiting, for now, the participation of the Russian delegation. These measures included, among others, the downsizing of the Russian delegation and the suspension of Russian participation in Committee and Sub-committee visits and the Transatlantic Forum.

In addition to these issues, many of the NPA delegates were extremely interested in the outcome of the U.S. Presidential elections and how the incoming administration would conduct relations with Europe in general and with NATO in particular. Questions over the incoming Administration's views on Afghanistan, Iran and missile defense were on everyone's agenda. A highlight of the session was a letter that President-elect Obama had written to outgoing NPA President Jose Lello of Portugal pledging to work with NATO and the NPA during the Obama administration.

Before the opening sessions of the Assembly's plenary the U.S. delegation received a detailed briefing from Ambassador Kurt Volker, the U.S. representative to NATO. He very ably prepared us for the nuances involved in some of the issues that would be debated during the NPA sessions, particularly regarding Russia and whether NATO should offer a Membership Action Plan to Georgia. In addition to the briefing by Ambassador Volker, various members of our delegation held private meetings with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who gave an overview of member state perspectives on the most controversial issues confronting the alliance; he later addressed the NPA's plenary session. The Foreign Minister of Spain, who also addressed the plenary, briefed several of our Members. And, we met with General Bantz John Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander for Europe who covered a wide range of issues, including the situation in Afghanistan. I also had the opportunity to attend a private meeting with Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia who recounted the August conflict between his country and Russia and what Georgia faces today with respect to reconstruction of the country.

Over two days of the NPA session, intense meetings of the NPA committees took place. There are five NPA committees. In each, parliamentarians presented reports on issues before the alliance. The reports were debated by all members of the committee who often made counter-arguments or suggestions for amending a report. Members of our delegation were present in each committee meeting.

I chaired the Economics and Security Committee, which heard reports on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, on Russia's economy, and on economic developments in India. Representative Boozman was the co- rapporteur of this last report, which he very ably presented, and which generated an interesting discussion. The Committee also heard an interesting presentation by Rodrigo Rato, former managing director of the International Monetary Fund who spoke on the impact of the current global financial crisis. The Committee also heard from Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, former head of the military command in Afghanistan who spoke on the nexus between security and development in Afghanistan.

The Political Committee heard several reports that touched off sometimes animated debates. Most notable were the reports on NATO's future political agenda and NATO's partnerships that included a lengthy discussion on the recent Russia-Georgia conflict and the future of Georgia's membership in NATO. There were significant differences of opinion on who actually was responsible for starting the war in Georgia and whether to grant Georgia a Membership Action Plan for eventual membership in NATO. U.S. Representative Mike Ross was a rapporteur for a report on a possible NATO political engagement with Iran. When Mr. Ross was unable to present his paper to the Committee, Representative Carolyn McCarthy stepped in and made the presentation. The report was well received. Representative Ben Chandler serves as a vice-chairman on this Committee and during the session, Representative Carolyn McCarthy was elected to serve as a Subcommittee vice-chairperson.

The Defense and Security Committee heard two reports on NATO's ongoing operations, including the ISAF mission in Afghanistan and on the contributions non-NATO states were making to NATO operations. The Committee also received a report on NATO's future capability requirements. During the session, the Committee received presentations from the Minister of Defense of Spain, and the Defense Minister of Georgia. Representative Tauscher is a vice-chair of one of the Committee's subcommittees.

The Science and Technology Committee heard reports on energy security, reducing global nuclear threats, and on missile defense.

Representative David Scott was very engaged on the issue of energy security and was successful in offering three amendments to the resolution proposed on energy and security.

The Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security also heard a report on energy security and the protection of energy infrastructure, along with reports on Kosovo and the future stability in the Balkans, and democracy and security in Central Asia. The Committee also heard presentations on the Balkans and Central Asia.

On Tuesday, the final day of the plenary, the general assembly debated and approved a resolution on relations with Russia. The consensus view was that NATO and Russia should resume their dialogue and continue to find ways to cooperate with each other on critical issues. Also on Tuesday, the Assembly elected new officers to serve during 2009. I had the honor of being elected President of the Assembly and look forward to an interesting and productive year.

Prior to arriving in Valencia for the NPA Plenary, the delegation traveled to Italy on November 10-13 for bi-lateral meetings in Rome and Florence. In Rome, the delegation received a briefing by U.S. Charge d' Affairs, Barbara Leaf and Embassy staff on current relations between Italy and the United States, that continues to be strong. After the briefing, the delegation, in honor of Veterans Day, traveled to the Sicily-Rome Cemetery in the town of Nettuno, just outside the city of Anzio.

During the Second World War, the critical Italian campaign was launched in Sicily and proceeded up the coast of Italy. The delegation visited the resting place of almost 8,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airman who died in the liberation of Sicily and in the landings at Salerno and Anzio. The beautiful cemetery is managed by the U.S. American Battle Monuments Commission. Together, the members of the delegation laid a wreath at the cemetery's central monument, ``Brothers in Arms.'' Members of the delegation also visited individual graves of fallen soldiers from their states to place a rose in memory of those servicemen. This was perhaps the most memorable and poignant moment of the delegation's trip. We were deeply honored to visit the cemetery and want to thank Ron Grosso of the Commission and Joseph Bevilacqua, Cemetery Superintendent, for their hospitality and the fine job they do preserving the memory of those U.S. servicemen who gave their lives in Italy.

Upon our return to Rome, the delegation visited the NATO Defense College for a tour and briefing by the College Commandant, Lt. Gen. Wolf-Dieter Loeser. The College was created in 1951 at the suggestion of General Dwight Eisenhower who argued that military officers from the newly created NATO Alliance ``needed an establishment where they could meet and learn to operate together.'' The Commandant briefed us on the work taking place at the College and the issues currently under discussion in the Fall curriculum. We also had the opportunity to meet several U.S. military personnel attending the Senior Course.

Following the visit to the Defense College, the delegation visited the Italian Ministry of Defense. We were briefed by the Deputy Minister of Defense Crosetto and the head of the Italian General Staff, General Camporini who gave us an overview of the numerous operations that the Italian military were currently engaged in. Italy has approximately 8,000 troops stationed abroad, including 2,200 in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, 2,500 in Lebanon, and 83 engaged in training the Iraqi National Police. This meeting provided a precise, focused discussion of how Italy is contributing to the global security mission.

Also in Rome, the delegation was hosted at a working lunch by Senator Sergio Di Gregorio, President of the Italian delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We had a very animated discussion on issues ranging from the U.S. presidential elections, to Afghanistan, to Russia and energy security. At the time of our visit, the Italian Senate was in the middle of a debate on their defense budget. With the global economic crisis affecting everyone, Senator Di Gregorio told us that the defense budget for next year would be less than 1 percent of the Italian GDP. As a result, we were told it was unlikely that Italy could do much more in Afghanistan. Following our meeting at the Senate, the delegation met with Mr. Gianni Letta, Under Secretary of the Council of Ministers and close advisor to Prime Minister Berlusconi. Mr. Letta covered a range of issues but spent some time addressing the impact of the global financial crisis on Italy.

On November 13, the delegation traveled to Florence. We were met by U.S. Consul General Mary Ellen Countryman who briefed the delegation on the work the Consulate does in Tuscany and the surrounding region. Tuscany is home to several thousand U.S. citizens, retired, employed, or students studying abroad. While in Florence we also visited the European University Institute which operates a campus comprising doctoral students from all over Europe. We were warmly welcomed by EUI President Yves Menv, faculty and students. A lively discussion followed on the U.S. elections and its impact on transatlantic relations, the differences between the European and U.S. views of the world, and the future role of NATO, relations with Russia, and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our visit to Italy concluded that evening at a dinner hosted by New York University which operates a campus outside Florence for American students studying in Italy. Our dinner was hosted by Ms. Ellyn Toscano, Director of the Campus. Ellyn is no stranger to the House of Representatives where she served for several years as the chief of staff to our colleague, Jose Serrano.

Madam Speaker, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly provides a unique opportunity for Members of Congress to engage in serious discussions on critical issues with our colleagues from other NATO member states. I believe our delegation, and thus this Congress, benefits greatly from the information we exchange and the personalities we meet during these meetings. I look forward to a very productive Assembly during 2009.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of our Embassy staff in Rome and Madrid, our Consular services in Florence and our entire military escort group from the United States Air Force, including the pilots who took us to Europe and back for the NPA sessions. Our diplomatic corps and military personnel provide a quiet but invaluable service in ensuring safety and an efficient schedule for U.S. congressional delegations, and this group of diplomats, servicemen and women was no exception. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to duty.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long history of ``The Leaf-Chronicle'' newspaper in Clarksville, Tennessee, which is now in its 200th year of serving Clarksville, Montgomery County and Middle Tennessee.

``The Leaf-Chronicle'' was officially formed in 1890 by a merger between two local journals, ``The Tobacco Leaf'' and ``The Chronicle,'' which dated back to 1808. For two centuries, the people in our community have been well-served by a quality daily newspaper that fairly and thoroughly covers the stories so important to our families and businesses. Twenty-two men and women have had the honor of serving as Publisher of the Clarksville newspaper, including the current publisher, Andrew Oppman, and his immediate predecessor, my friend Gene Washer, who served 17 years as Publisher until his retirement earlier this year.

We are particularly proud of the newspaper's coverage of Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne Division, which are an integral part of our community in Montgomery and Stewart counties and the surrounding area. The journalists of ``The Leaf-Chronicle'' show their support through extensive coverage of our military families and others in the community whose support of our men and women in uniform is unwavering.

``The Leaf-Chronicle'' has always been known for its strong opinions page, where it has boldly editorialized on local, state, national and international issues. In fact, because of the reputation of the newspaper's powerful editorial page, all operations were suspended between 1862 and 1865 when Union troops occupied Clarksville during the Civil War.

Publication was also threatened in the early morning hours of January 22, 1999, when a tornado ripped through downtown Clarksville, leaving behind it a path of destruction, including severe damage to the offices of ``The Leaf-Chronicle.'' The staff, however, determined to publish a newspaper to cover such an important story, gathered at Mr. Washer's home. The next day, subscribers still received the paper on their doorsteps, this time with eight pages of in-depth coverage and photographs of the storm and its impact on Montgomery County.

Following the storm and until completion of its current, state-of- the-art facilities, the newspaper staff was temporarily based in an empty supermarket that featured a sign reading ``Foodland--Fresh,'' which was poignantly changed to read ``The Leaf-Chronicle--Fresh Daily.''

As we reflect on the long service of ``The Leaf-Chronicle'' to its readers, it is important to think of all the historic moments that have happened in the last two centuries in Tennessee, across this country and throughout the world. Middle Tennesseans have had ``The Leaf- Chronicle'' to report daily on those historic events, provide insightful analysis and help record history as it happens.

Madam Speaker, I ask you and our colleagues to join me in recognizing the long history of ``The Leaf-Chronicle,'' expressing gratitude for its service to our community and wishing its staff all the best as the newspaper enters its third century of quality journalism.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to join you in thanking Mr. McCrery for his work here. I have enjoyed working with you very much, Jim.

I want to speak about section 134 of the bill. But before I do, I've just got to say that some of us in this body are so thoroughly disgusted with the other body right now in the way this bill has been handled. We've found that it doesn't take a lot of political courage to spend somebody else's money that can't vote. And we had, from our committee, the extender package paid for or offset by people who didn't object to the offsets. And because of the Senate rules--or the other body's rules and the ability for some over there to object to a unanimous consent request--they sent it back over here on top of a must-pass bill that is unpaid for and one of the reasons we're in the shape we're in right now. And so I just had to express utter disgust and frustration with the way that it was handled in the other body.

Now, as it comes to the bill, when the Secretary came over here with the bill, it was a bailout; it was public risk and private gain. By the wisdom of the body here, we put section 134 of the recoupment clause in which now makes it private risk and public gain, which is the way it ought to be. It is now a situation where we're not talking about bailing out Wall Street or the high flyers. If, at the end of the day, there is a shortfall in the Treasury of the United States, then they will be assessed that shortfall and the Treasury will be made whole by section 134 of the recoupment clause.

What the bill does now is it attempts to protect all Americans who have an IRA, a 401(k), or part of a State or local government pension plan. That's why I'm going to vote ``yes'' even though I am so thoroughly disgusted with what the Senate put on it.

I thank the chairman for yielding. And I know if anybody has been keeping up with this weekend, I know that they realize and understand that this is not an ordinary time. I believe personally we are here because in this decade we have witnessed financial mismanagement and regulatory neglect which leads us to this morning.

Unfortunately, when the Secretary of the Treasury came over and we looked at the proposal, or the bare bones of the proposal, it appeared to some of us that it was all about private gain and public risk. And that was unacceptable for the taxpayers to take the risk to help those referred to as Wall Street.

So I have been asked to talk about this recoupment clause, section 134 of the bill, that was finally accepted in negotiations. It says the following: ``Upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall submit a report to the Congress on the net amount within the Troubled Asset Relief Program''--this bill. ``In any case there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt.''

What this means is we have taken away the private gain-public risk aspects of this act and made sure that the people who are eligible to participate in it will pay back to the Treasury any shortfall that may occur at the end of the program.

With this section 134, it is my opinion that this is no longer about Wall Street. This is about the IRAs, the 401(k)s, the pension plans that all American citizens have and that all State governments have at stake in their pension programs. This is no longer, then, about bailing out anyone. It is about trying to put together a plan that will do less harm than we would do otherwise by our inaction to every American citizen's financial security, IRA, 401(k) pension programs.

If we have, as Chairman Bernanke, Secretary Paulson, the President and others has said, a colossal or a catastrophic situation happen because of our inaction, it's not going to be Wall Street; it's going to be the 401(k)s, the IRAs and the pension plans that all of us share.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend, Mrs. Shirlene Mercer, a long-time community leader, teacher and role model. While I know she will continue to play an important role in our community, Shirlene is retiring after serving the 8th Congressional district for 20 years.

Shirlene has always worked to serve the community above herself. She was a teacher for 24 years in Hardeman County, TN, before joining our staff in 1989 as Director of District Services, a position through which she has helped countless Tennesseans.

Shirlene has also helped many West Tennesseans through her tireless dedication to fighting crime in our area by initiating regular anti- crime marches for residents of Madison County, Tennessee, to make clear their intention to keep our neighborhoods safe for our families. I have been honored to be part of these marches over the years, as have many other local, state and national leaders, including Vice President Al Gore. Shirlene's work gained national attention and helped highlight the problems of crime in our area and in many communities like it across our state and country.

Both Vice President Gore and I have been fortunate to receive Shirlene's guidance over the years, as have many other leaders, including Governor Phil Bredesen, Governor Ned McWherter, Senator Jim Sasser, Congressman Harold Ford, Sr., Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., and many members of the Tennessee General Assembly. Her counsel on issues of importance to Tennesseans has always been helpful to those who seek to better serve their communities.

Shirlene is a graduate of Merry High School and Lane College, both in Jackson, TN, and she did graduate work at the University of Memphis and Austin Peay State University. She is married to Luther, a Madison County Commissioner, and they have two grown children, Luther Mercer, Jr., and Tina Mercer. Both are following in their mother's footsteps and proving to be strong leaders in their communities.

Madam Speaker, I wish you could see Shirlene's office walls in our Jackson, TN, district office. They are filled, floor to ceiling, with awards and commendations she has earned over the years for her service and leadership. Included in these many awards are multiple recognitions from the NAACP, the Tennessee Education Association's ``Humanitarian Award'' and the FBI's ``Director's Community Leadership Award,'' just to name a few of the very long list.

I know that even as Shirlene begins her retirement from Congressional service, she will remain active in our community. I am sure she will continue to help West Tennesseans and will remain a leader in the Tennessee Democratic Party. Many of us will still seek her counsel and friendship.

Madam Speaker, I hope that you and our colleagues will join Betty Ann and me in congratulating Shirlene on her retirement, expressing deep gratitude and admiration for her long career of public service and wishing her all the best as she works in new ways to help those in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have a choice, another choice tonight. The incentives in these extenders are important to all Americans, and they are critical to job creation. We can do this one of two ways. We can offset the cost of these extenders without adding to this massive debt. That is one of the reasons why we are in the shape we are in right now. All of these offsets that we have proposed to pay our way on these extenders have interestingly enough been approved by the Senate in one form or another.

The very people who we are asking to help us with the offsets don't agree with the bill. It is a simple choice. We can pass these tax incentives, fully paid for with noncontroversial offsets, approved by the business community and Senate Republicans, or we can pass them and do what we have been doing, and that is continue to borrow massive amounts from overseas that have put us, Americans, all of us, in a financially vulnerable position.

One of the offsets is included in the Senate bill that was sent over here, and the other has been unanimously approved by the Senate in times gone by. So any suggestion that there is something that is controversial or objectionable by the Senate as a reason for inaction in a responsible manner by the House simply doesn't hold water.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope as we start a new day here, and we have been working all weekend on a very important package for our country, that we can at least, on something this important and as noncontroversial as the offsets are, do the responsible thing around here for once.

Mr. Speaker, we have been following the gentleman's economic plan for this country since 2001. I tell you where the spending is, we are spending today this year somewhere, depending on the interest rate, between $85-90 billion more on interest. This is where the spending is. Interest is the second fastest growing part of the Federal budget. We are borrowing money and hocking this country to anybody on Earth who will let us have it. That is why spending is going up, all right. It is going up $85-90 billion a year since 2001 when they started this deal.

If you want to continue to do that, we will see how much spending can slow down because you have to pay interest.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to join our colleagues today in paying tribute to my friend, Congressman Bud Cramer, who, as you know, will retire later this year after representing Alabama in this body for 18 years. During that time, he has been an important leader in Congress and an excellent public servant for the American people.

Several years ago, Bud and I, along with a handful of our Democratic colleagues, formed a small group to fill what we saw as a void within the body at that time--a solution-oriented coalition of moderate members who could help forge a bipartisan bridge between our colleagues on either side of the partisan aisle. That group was named the Blue Dog Coalition, to which we both still belong. I appreciate Bud's leadership in working on bipartisan solutions to the challenges facing our country.

A military veteran, grandfather and children's advocate, Bud has dedicated much of his life to serving his country and helping others. Madam Speaker, Bud Cramer's dedication and commitment have served our country well, and his presence in this chamber will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee for allowing me this 2 minutes.

Those of us who support the Childers amendment are not here of our volition. We're here because the Supreme

Court of the United States, in a clarification ruling regarding, in this case, the second amendment to the Constitution, said that it's the law of the land and certain things must be done.

This Childers amendment does this and only this. It does not, for example, have any provisions that would limit the ability of the independent authorities of D.C., such as a public housing authority, from restricting firearms. It does not repeal the ammunition ban. It does not do anything in terms of strict liability for gun manufacturers, as the District law provides, provisions regarding exemptions.

All it does is what we would do routinely around here if it were any other group of American citizens in any State or territory. We would say, look, the Supreme Court changed the law of the land that Congress is going to enact enabling legislation to allow for that decision to be instrumental and put into place. And you will do the same whether you live in California, New York, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, wherever. This is done routinely. I don't understand how people can argue that since its the District, it ought to somehow be different than any other American citizen.

And so, Mr. Speaker, this Childers amendment is very narrowly drawn to only enforce the Supreme Court decision as it relates to that decision; nothing more, nothing less. And whatever the District wants to do outside the parameters of that is perfectly all right with me.

I thank the gentleman.

We're here tonight, not because we've asked for a vote but because the Supreme Court, in a recent decision, changed the law of the land or at least clarified what the law of the land is with respect to the second amendment. It could be about almost any subject. We routinely come here after the Supreme Court decides what the law of the land is on a justiciable issue, and we enact, implementing legislation whether its on people in Tennessee or in Mississippi or in Oregon or in Washington State or in the District of Columbia. That's done routinely over and over again. The subject happens to be the second amendment in this most recent Supreme Court decision. It could be about anything.

Nobody disputes the fact that the District of Columbia has every right to make its own laws. What we do dispute is that the District of Columbia does not have the right, nor does any other American citizen, to ignore the law of the land. The law of the land, as enunciated in a recent Supreme Court decision, whether one agrees or disagrees, grants to individual citizens the right to bear arms legally. The District has failed to implement that decision, and therefore, we are here tonight.

This Childers substitute does nothing more nor nothing less than implement the bare minimum that the Supreme Court said was the law of the land. Whether you like it or not, that is the law of the land when the Supreme Court decides a justiciable issue.

This legislation, the Childers substitute, does not in any way limit the authority of the District or the ability of independent authorities in the District to restrict firearm possession. It does not repeal the D.C. law banning a person from the possession of ammunition. It does not amend the D.C. definition of ``restricted pistol bullets.'' It does not repeal the D.C. law providing for strict liability for handgun manufacturers.

Quite frankly, many of us live in the District for most of the year now because of our job requirements. I don't want to impose on the District, but I do say this:

The District, just like people all over the rest of America, has to implement legislation when the Supreme Court speaks. That's why we're here, not because we asked for this. I, quite frankly, enjoy living in the District and enjoy having the District make the laws that we live under here, but like no other citizen, the District is no different in that they cannot ignore the law of the land even if they disagree with it as cannot the citizens of my State or of any other State.

Madam Speaker, I could not improve on the eloquence of my friend, Jimmy Duncan from Knoxville, but I just wanted to join and thank you for bringing this resolution about the Lady Vols. It is a storied program. I went there some years ago now and played a little basketball myself, and I doubt, I told somebody today, I couldn't make the women's team now.

But Pat Summitt is really a legend, and she and my Chief of Staff, Vikki Walling were teammates at UT-Martin several years ago.

It is not only a sense of pride to those of us from Tennessee for the many accomplishments that the Lady Vols have made over the years, but the graduation rate of the players is something, I think, that is really indicative of the kind of quality program that Coach Summitt and her staff run. And so I want to thank you, again, for bringing this to the floor.

I rarely take out a Special Order. I rarely speak about matters that have something other to do than the governance of our country, and tonight is no exception. I want to talk a little while tonight about something that affects every American, something we, unfortunately, pay little attention to because it is not something that we recognize when we see it or realize what's happening as it's happening, and that has to do with our system of government and the way that the redistricting process as to how we elect Members of the United States House of Representatives has evolved through the years.

Gerrymandering has always been a problem; named for the gentleman from Massachusetts some 200 years ago, when district lines were first conceived and drawn. But really, the modern-day gerrymandering that I am going to talk a bit a little while tonight began really in 1962 and, interestingly enough, it came to the Supreme Court from a case out of Tennessee, my home State. Let me give you a little summary, a history.

During the first half of the 20th century, Tennessee, along with many other traditionally rural States, experienced growth in urban areas, along with a decline in the rural population. In the late 1950s, Tennessee continued to use election district boundaries set over 60 years before to elect members of its State legislature. These district boundaries no longer reflected the true distribution of the State's population.

By retaining the outdated election district boundaries, rural citizens were allotted a greater proportional representation than their counterparts in urban areas. The continued use of the outdated district boundaries eased the reelection of incumbent legislators and diluted the voting power of ethnic minorities and others living in urban areas. For example, the number of Memphis voters electing one State representative was 10 times the number of voters electing a representative in some rural districts in our State.

After serving in World War II, a gentleman named Charles Baker returned to his hometown of Millington, Tennessee, in my congressional district, our congressional district, which is a suburb of Memphis. Baker entered politics and, in 1954, was elected chairman of the Shelby County Quarterly Court, a fiscal and legislative body that ran the affairs of Shelby County, Tennessee, which included Memphis.

Baker became frustrated with the lack of State revenues and attention paid to Memphis. Due to the use of outdated election district boundaries, Memphis was represented by half the number of State legislators it rightfully deserved, based upon its population.

Baker brought a lawsuit against Joe Carr, Sr., who was then Tennessee's Secretary of State, requesting the State legislature redraw the election district boundaries to reflect the actual demographics of the State. In a 6-2 ruling in the case of Baker v. Carr, the United States Supreme Court held that Federal courts have the power to determine the constitutionality of a State's voting district.

In a decision delivered by Baker v. Carr, the court focused on the issues of whether the court could involve itself in an apportionment dispute, and in addressing this issue, the court held that apportionment was a Federal claim arising under the 14th amendment and therefore subject to judicial scrutiny by the courts. Additionally, the voters initiating this case had claimed that their votes were being arbitrarily impaired or debased.

The court's decision sidestepped the prior decision in Colegrove by distinguishing claims brought under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment from those claims brought under the guarantee clause of article 4 of the Constitution.

The court returned the case to the district court for further actions pursuant to their instructions. I quote, ``We conclude that the complaint's allegations of a denial of equal protection present a justiciable Constitution cause of action on which appellants are entitled a trial and decision. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the 14th amendment.''

By holding that voters could challenge the constitutionality of electoral apportionment in Federal court, Baker v. Carr opened the doors of the Federal courts to a long line of apportionment cases. One year later, Justice Douglas extended the Baker ruling by establishing the so-called ``one man, one vote'' principle in Gray v. Sanders and, in 1964, in the case of Wesberry v. Sanders, extended that principle, further holding that, ``as nearly as practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.''

Madam Speaker, the system that we have after 40-plus years of the court turning over electoral redistricting to the ``ins'' has resulted in a broken system, in the view of myself and Mr. Wamp, who couldn't be here tonight, from Chattanooga, and also on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition, which has endorsed the legislation I am speaking about.

What we are concerned about is the rise of not only reapportionment based on party ideology and party lines, but it has given, with modern technology, the ability of the ``ins,'' be they Republican or Democrats, to select their voters rather than their voters selecting them.

If one looks at the electoral map, one can only wonder how in the world could this come about, with lines going

down highways and across bridges and every sort of conceivable spider web district, where the voters really have little input and almost no say in what districts they are in.

We have, by in essence turning over to the ``ins,'' given rise to this completely understandable phenomenon. As a Democrat, it behooves me to give my next-door neighbor all my Republicans and it behooves my next-door neighbor Republican to give me all of his or her Democrats, which means that both of us have a more secure seat and the voters are often completely left out of the mix.

There are many groups that are now looking at this and beginning to realize that the system is truly broken. And so let me just give you some statistics that may shock you about the lack of competitiveness in this Congress and in the Congresses to come if we don't fix it.

Increasingly, State legislators, for wholly understandable reasons and for their own political purposes and ours, are redrawing congressional lines even outside of the traditional 10-year cycle. If I live on Elm Street in any town in America and the ``ins'' redrew the seat, I could be put into a district that is 80 percent one party or the other and therefore my vote has been effectively removed from me. I can't help the 80 percent. The 20 percent don't need me. And so my vote in a congressional election really doesn't matter any more.

Competition in congressional races has declined dramatically over the last 40-plus years. In 1946, just over 85 percent of incumbents were reelected to the House of Representatives. In 2002 and 2004, close to 99 percent of incumbents were reelected. In 2004, only 22 contests in the entire country were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points. In 2002, 36 House contests were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points. Thirty-six. That is less than 10 percent of the House.

At the other end of the spectrum, 172 winning candidates in 2004 either had no major party opposition or had a margin of victory by at least 40 percentage points. According to Patrick Basham, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, today, a healthy, unindicted incumbent in the House of Representatives stands a 99 percent chance of being reelected. Something is wrong with a system where there is more turnover in the Soviet politburo than in this House.

Even looking at the 2006 midterm elections, which many have called a watershed, less than 10 percent of the seats in the House changed hands. Unfortunately, we know this: The less competitive the election, the less likely voters are to get involved.

The House of Representatives is a truly unique institution. It is the only political office that I know about where one cannot be appointed or one cannot accede to a seat in the case of a death or resignation. Every Member of the House of Representatives has to stand and be elected. That is why, when someone dies or resigns in the middle of a term, the seat stays vacant here until there is a special election.

One can be President without being elected. We know President Ford was. One can be a Governor, one can be a United States Senator. But only here does everyone have to be elected.

I believe political vulnerability is essential to the health of our House, and our current system does not do that. As I said, advanced map drawing techniques allow politicians to select their voters instead of the voter selecting their leaders. When Members come here from these districts that have been gerrymandered, they are good people, but they have little incentive really to work across party lines in order to reach solutions. As a matter of fact, they have a disincentive because if their district is skewed so heavily one way or the other, then the election is really in the party primaries, where barely more than a third of the people, in most instances, are the highly charged partisans, either Democrat or Republican. And so if one comes here wanting to work across the aisle, one has to, as we might say in Tennessee, watch one's back, because the highly charged partisans don't like that.

When you have a situation like we have in America, where there is and must be a middle for all of us to come together and reach solutions, when that middle shrinks to the point where we cannot do that, then in a multi, everything-society like ours, we are going to create polarization, and gridlock will then ensue. That, in part, is what is happening.

The other phenomenon is this drawing of congressional districts under a recent Supreme Court ruling any time one can get enough power in one State to do so.

Now, if one wants to conform to the one person-one vote rule based on a census, and then is allowed to draw lines based on that census 8 years later, all you have to go is go to an 8-year old phone book and try to call somebody. That, to me, makes no sense. But what happens here is a debasing of the voter influence and really a usurpation of the power of the people by politicians, of which I am one, and that is why I am trying to change it.

David Winston, who drew the House districts for the Republicans in this case after the 1990 United States census, said, ``As a map maker, I can have more of an impact on an election than a campaign or the candidate. When I as a map maker have more of an impact on an election than the voters, the system is out of whack.''

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had this to say: ``Democrats get to rip off the public in the States where they control and protect their incumbents, and we get to rip off the public in the States we control and protect our incumbents. So the public gets ripped off in both circumstances. In the long-run, that is a downward spiral of isolation.'' That is former Speaker Gingrich.

David Broder, a well-respected columnist, said this about it: ``At the founding of this Republic, House Members were given the shortest terms, half the length of the Presidents, one-third that of the Senators, to ensure that they would be sensitive to any shifts in public opinion. Now they have more job security than the Queen of England, and as little need to seek their subjects' assent.''

Some States, to their credit, have tried to reform their redistricting systems, and have failed. California and Ohio are two of the most recent examples. Thirteen States have some form of independent commission or process that has a part in the drawing of the congressional map, and nearly half the States ban mid-decade redistricting. However, much more, in my view, needs to be done, and it will take Federal action.

The House of Representatives is a Federal office and article I, section 4 of the Constitution gives the Congress the ability to set parameters for election to the House. In fact, it is only fair that Members come from districts that are derived from using a uniform process.

The Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters, the Council For Excellence in Government and other advisory groups have joined together with assistance from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to form Americans for Redistricting Reform, which will hopefully raise awareness of the problem, promote solutions, and serve as a clearinghouse of information.

We have had a bill in, H.R. 543, that we have introduced that would mandate to the States that they must have in terms of the congressional seats, it doesn't matter, they can do anything with the State senate and State house seats that is constitutional, that they put in place an independent commission that will draw the congressional district lines once every 10 years after the census.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will include for the record Mr. Broader's article that was published in the Washington Post, and also an article by Gerald Hebert and David Vance on this subject.

I am not going to take the whole hour, but I wish people, our citizens, would realize what is happening to us. The Congress is acting, in my view, irrationally. We have not a parliamentary system, but a representative system, and yet, time and time again, we see votes in committee here in the House and on the board behind me, all the Democrats voting one way, all the Republicans vote another.

I am a Democrat from a southern rural district. It is not logical nor rational for me to vote every time with urban Members or urban Members to

vote with me just because we are Democrats. It also makes no sense for all the Republicans to vote together in every way all the time.

You see the Centrist Caucus, a centrist body here, continuing to shrink, and, as it does, the polarization, and as Speaker Gingrich said, the isolation here becomes more palatable and it makes it far more difficult for us to actually reach solutions to the myriad of problems that face our country. I don't know how to fix it, other than to start where it begins, and that is at the drawing of congressional districts process, because otherwise all of us here will be more sensitive to either the partisans on the left or the partisans on the right, rather than to the overall good of our country.

In this bill, Congressman Wamp and myself are asking people to give up an enormous amount of power. There are not many places where you can go and with your friends in the legislature sit down and draw a district that you can win without a whole lot of pushback really from anybody, but in collusion with the other party. When the Supreme Court turned it over to the ``ins,'' they set up a system that after 40- something years results in exactly what we see.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attempt to bring some reason to the concept of congressional districts that have more of a community of interest than they do Democrat or Republican voters. I know I am speaking against myself, and I certainly don't mean for this to reflect on any Member here, because the Members are basically themselves victims of this system that has grown into being after 40-something years of congressional redistricting based on political considerations rather than community of interest and so forth. It makes no sense for someone on Elm Street at 301 to be in a different congressional district from someone on Elm Street that lives at 303. Most communities have legislative interests, not individuals, and that is what I am afraid we have become victimized by.

We will be talking some more about this in the future. I think you will see more and more articles written about it, because there is, in the view of many, a problem, a serious problem, that cannot be fixed until we address the core of it.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles referred to earlier.

[From the Roll Call, July 29, 2008]

Redistricting Must Be Fixed Before Census

(By J. Gerald Hebert and David G. Vance)

Partisan abuse of redistricting is one of Congress'

dirtiest little Secrets. The outrage over partisan

gerrymanders fades well before the next census rolls around,

and this travesty of our democracy never gets addressed.

Backroom deals by both parties have produced bulletproof

districts from Florida to California, fueling voter apathy

and undermining our democracy. Elections are determined

before the voters ever have the chance to go to the polls.

Tonight, Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and other Members will

take to the House floor to draw attention to the abuses of

the redistricting process. Last week, Tanner and Rep. Zach

Wamp (R-Tenn.) introduced H.Res. 1365, advocating the use of

nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw Congressional

districts. This resolution, and an earlier bill to revamp the

process, will not endear these Members to many of their

colleagues sitting in completely safe districts, virtually

assured of reelection after re-election.

With redistricting abuses on the rise, the public is

becoming increasingly aware of the problem. Our organization,

the Campaign Legal Center, along with the League of Women

Voters, the Council for Excellence in Government and a

diverse group of advisory organizations, have founded a new

organization called Americans for Redistricting Reform. With

financial assistance from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the

goal of Americans for Redistricting Reform will be to raise

awareness of the problem, promote solutions and serve as a

clearinghouse of information and networking. More information

can be found on americansforredistrictingreform.org.

Our organizations see the launch of this group as vitally

important work, as our nation prepares for the upcoming 2010

Census and another round of redistricting, one that will

surely be marked by gross partisan gerrymandering unless

there is reform of the redistricting process.

Redistricting abuses may have evolved into more of an exact

science, but the practice is nearly as old as districts

themselves. The term ``gerrymandering'' dates back to 1812,

when a partisan redistricting in Massachusetts resulted in a

district that one newspaper editor observed looked like a

salamander and dubbedita ``Gerrymander'' after the state's

governor, Elbridge Gerry. Since that time, gerrymanders have

taken different forms. Parties have used racial

gerrymandering to dilute minority voting strength, partisan

gerrymandering to solidify one-party control, and bipartisan

gerrymandering to protect Representatives from both parties.

The post-2000 redistricting cycle saw unprecedented efforts

to use redistricting for partisan purposes. Technological

advances made it possible to calibrate districts using

election data with even greater precision. The result was

that the 2002 elections produced the fewest ousted incumbents

ever--only four Members were voted out of office.

Historically, post-redistricting elections have generally

been more competitive because the drawing of new lines

mitigates incumbents' advantage by introducing them to a new

group of voters. The 2000 redistricting round had the

opposite effect.

As redistricting has become ever more clinical, moderates

from both parties have been driven from Congress in droves.

In 2002, one of us saw our Representative voted out of office

after 16 years as a result of a redistricting in Maryland

designed for just that purpose. Rep. Connie Morella was a

moderate Republican, popular with colleagues from both

parties, who would cross the aisle and her party's

leadership. in order to pass common-sense legislation for the

good of her constituents and the Nation. As moderates like

Morella have disappeared from the halls of Congress, the

partisan gridlock has sunk deeper roots into Capitol Hill to

the detriment of our democracy.

Even after the initial round of redistricting following the

2000 Census, partisans in some states used mid-decade

redistricting, or re-redistricting, to further advance

partisan goals. A handful of states attempted to redraw

existing, valid district lines. Absent a court order

invalidating a redistricting plan, there is unlikely any

other purpose that motivates a mid-decade redistricting other

than partisan gain.

Make no mistake, when politicians engage in extreme

partisan gerrymandering, it is the voters who suffer. In the

case of Texas' mid-decade redistricting, in which one of us

represented most of the Congressional delegation's Democrats,

the Republican Party gained seats in the short term but the

state lost critical seniority when the Democrats regained the

majority in the House.

Texas Democrats who lost their seats in the gerrymander led

by then-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) would likely have been

holding vast power in Congress today, such as Martin Frost,

who could be chairing the Rules Committee; Charlie Stenholm,

Agriculture; Jim Turner, Homeland Security; and Max Sandlin,

a Ways and Means Subcommittee. The junior Republicans from

Texas who replaced those powerful incumbents have very little

influence in the House. DeLay's scorched-earth policy on re-

redistricting left citizens of the Lone Star State holding

the bag.

Partisan abuse of redistricting is a shameful blot on our

democracy. Politicians have absolutely no business choosing

their voters. In a true democracy, voters must choose their

politicians. In the 110th Congress, two bills, H.R. 543 and

H.R. 2248, have been introduced to overhaul the Nation's

redistricting process, but both have beat referred to a

subcommittee where they have yet to see the light of day. At

the very least, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority

Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) owe it to the Nation to see that

hearings are held on these bills. The system must be changed,

and hearings are the first step.

The 2010 Census is just around the corner with partisan

gerrymanders close at its heels. If we don't move quickly,

the train will have left the station yet again and Congress

will feign dismay and continue to talk about the need to fix

the system the next time around.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1080, a resolution honoring the extraordinary service and sacrifice of the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army and their families. I am proud to represent in this chamber a portion of Fort Campbell, where the Screaming Eagles are based.

This resolution is especially timely as soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division are currently deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. In April, Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who commands the Screaming Eagles, took over as the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Under General Schloesser, the 101st Airborne Division took over command of Regional Command East, an area comprised of 14 provinces in eastern Afghanistan. At the same time, three Brigade Combat Teams from the 101st Airborne Division are serving in Iraq. Many of the soldiers have been deployed multiple times in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of those deployments under the command of General David Petraeus, now the Commander of U.S. Central Command.

One need only look at the history of the Screaming Eagles to understand the legacy of the 101st Airborne Division. Originally activated during World War I, the Screaming Eagles would go on to serve in World War II, Vietnam, and Desert Storm, along with their most recent deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

During World War II, the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division would have the distinction of being the first Americans to land in France as part of the D-Day invasion. Nearly 60 years later, the Screaming Eagles became the first conventional unit to deploy in the Global War on Terror; participated in Operation Anaconda, a tough early battle in Afghanistan; and help lead the invasion into Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for joining us today to honor the 101st Airborne Division, the men and women who have earned their place in history. They and their families will be in our thoughts and prayers as they continue to serve with distinction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Today, the Court rightly struck down the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have co-sponsored legislation to end this ban, which contradicts the Second Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution.

In issuing its decree, the Court protected the right of a sportsman to have a shotgun in his home and affirmed the right of a homeowner to keep a handgun to protect his family and property from intruders. Our Founding Fathers fought and died for the individual liberties we all enjoy--among them, the right of the citizens of this country to possess firearms.

We are not given the latitude to pick which of those liberties we choose to follow or enforce, be it the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship. Like those fundamental freedoms, we cannot dismiss or dilute the right to keep and bear arms.

As an avid hunter and strong gun rights advocate, I applaud the Court for its decision. I look forward to continuing our work in Congress to protect the integrity of the Second Amendment.