Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and pay tribute to a great Georgian, Mr. Jimmy Franklin of Statesboro, Georgia.

This week in Orlando, Florida, Mr. Franklin will receive from the Georgia Bar Association the Distinguished Service Scrolls Award recognizing his outstanding achievement in his profession.

Mr. Franklin is a respected member of the bar, a leader in his city and county and his church. This award recognizes his long contribution to Georgia. Also, I am proud to acknowledge his long and trusted advice to me, to other Members of Congress, and to Governors of Georgia. His knowledge of policy and his love of this country is unsurpassed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure for me today to pay tribute to a great Georgian, Jimmy Franklin, and a warm and trusted friend of whom I have the greatest respect.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand here today on behalf of myself and the citizens of the 6th District of Georgia and express my deep sympathy to the family of Ronald Reagan and my grateful appreciation for the life of Ronald Reagan.

I had the occasion to meet Mr. Reagan for the first time in 1970 when he began his pursuit on the national political stage, and I watched in amazement as this man transformed a decade of dissent and discord into a decade of hope and prosperity through the power of his positive attitude and to his great patriotism to his country.

As a young man in the 1950s, I remember crawling under the bomb shelters and under my desk when we prepared for the Cold War and the worst of the tyranny of communism, and I watched 35 years later as, through his powerful persuasiveness, Ronald Reagan broke down the Berlin Wall, broke down the Soviet Union and brought peace and prosperity to more of the world.

On this day on behalf of all of my constituents, my children and my grandchildren, I give thanks for the life of Ronald Reagan, and I thank God that Ronald Reagan came America's way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for his work on this.

The discussion I have just heard was about what this bill is not. I would like to talk for a second about what this bill is.

This is a creative opportunity at the election of the local WIA board and at the election of the applicant for the grant to take a creative approach to take someone from unemployment to employment.

Now, outside the Beltway there is a real world; and in the 22 years prior to my election to this Congress, I ran a company, a company substantially all of whose employees were second or third career which meant they might have come out of a job loss, a job transfer, or a temporary unemployment because of the birth of a child or illness or whatever. And I can tell you in this unique world that we live in there is not a one-size-fits-all formula in terms of the requirements necessary for reemployment.

To allow the option for a local board to create these personal reemployment accounts and the option for an individual to accept the waiver and apply for the funds does the following things: it takes a person who is otherwise employable but in need of specific targeted help, whether it is in specific training, whether it is in child care or whether it is in transportation, to do a tailor-made job to go into employment, and I employed people that way every day for 22 years before I came to Congress.

It is a creative way to approach the needs of some people in looking for employment.

Secondly, what is so important for us to consider today is the present-day environment. The number of unemployed has been reduced from its peak because the American economy is improving. Those that are unemployed in many cases may be those who are more in need of specialized training or help that otherwise might have been true a year ago or 6 months ago. It is only right to grant that flexibility. And as long as we cannot get an agreement to go to conference on the base bill that now lies in limbo, it is only appropriate we take the right initiative.

I want to end with this. There are two basic motivators in human nature. One is risk and the other is reward. This approach takes the reward approach and the incentive approach and even in the end has the encouragement for residual funds to remain with the grantee, if they are employed earlier than they otherwise might have been.

Any other approach is for people to fear flexibility, to fear choice, and to fear creativity. Those are not things we should fear. Just as we proved in welfare-to-work, with targeted funds, with flexibility, with child care, with training, we could take a life of dependency and turn it into a life of independency. I will subscribe to that every single time.

Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, associate myself with all the kind remarks that have been made about Charlie, but I thought back to my first day here. I was elected on a special election, came in, I knew no one, and it was a hustle and bustle. Charlie Johnson was the guy who got me through that in what was a blur to me.

Secondly, I am reminded of how great this institution is, and I am reminded of three silent factors the public never sees. First is the sconce of Moses that looks down upon the Speaker as an inanimate object, but as a constant reminder of the integrity we all need. Second is our Founding Father, George Washington, whose portrait hangs on this side of our Capitol to remind us of where we come from.

The third silent but very present, day in and day out, person that guides the integrity of this most important institution is the quiet but effective leadership of Charlie Johnson. This institution has been blessed to have leaders of great capability from elected office, but from that seat next to the Speaker, we have been blessed to have a man who has the excellent commitment to fairness, integrity, responsibility and the preservation of this Republic, and that is Charlie Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address, in part, what was just spoken of by the minority in terms of the amendment they would like to have proposed and the reasons they would like to have proposed it, because it illustrates the difference in the two sides today.

It would be wrong for any American worker who listens to this debate to think for a minute that if anything happened to them on the work site that they do not have immediate access to the criminal courts of this country. They do. That is what makes the United States of America great.

It would also be wrong, I think, to assume that this is an employer versus employee argument. It is not. Go out today in Washington, D.C. to any project, building any building. After you see the sign at the front that shows who is building the building and who the contractor is, the next sign posted will be the safety regulations the employer and the employees are committed to.

Go into a facility in America today, go into UPS, go into Coca-Cola, go onto a construction site, and what do you see, you see safety first. OSHA has done what it was supposed to do, and American employers and employees have done what they are supposed to do.

Are there mistakes? From time to time, there are. Is there a route of grievance? There always is.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is trying to make that an expedited process where you get a hearing fast, you get a result fast, and the purpose of America can continue. And that is for American business to employ employees who work for a company to make products and services and build buildings. But let no one watching this debate think this is about whether or not someone does not have access to our courts if they are aggrieved. They do, and they do instantaneously.

What this debate is about is the great partnership that exists today in America between the worker and the employer, which is what makes this country great.

I appreciate the diligent work of the chairman of the subcommittee and his effort today to work on behalf of working families and what makes America great, the free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 408) congratulating the University of Denver men's hockey team for winning the 2004 NCAA men's hockey national championship, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 408, which congratulates the University of Denver's men's hockey team for winning the 2004 NCAA men's hockey national championship.

On Saturday, April 10, 2004, the University of Denver men's hockey team won its sixth national hockey championship by defeating the University of Maine 1 to nothing. The University of Denver had previously won five national titles in a 12-year span between 1950 and 1962, but this year's championship was their first since that time.

It was an exciting game, with the Denver Pioneers keeping the Maine Black Bears scoreless, despite a three-man advantage for Maine with 2 minutes to go in the third period of the match.

The game was just the third shutout in NCAA hockey championship history, and the announced crowd of 18,597 was the largest to watch a hockey game in the Fleet Center, which is the home of the NHL's Boston Bruins.

Adam Berkhoel, Denver's goalie, made 24 saves in the 2004 championship game and was named the Most Outstanding Player in the Frozen Four, which is the finals for the NCAA hockey matches.

The resolution before the House today congratulates the University of Denver men's hockey team, its players and coaches, for winning the 2004 NCAA men's hockey national championships, and recognizes the achievement of all the team's players, coaches, and staff.

Indeed, Denver University, the citizens of Denver and Colorado and all the students of the university are to be congratulated for their commitment and the great pride they take in this great accomplishment by winning the NCAA hockey championships.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 594) congratulating the Kennesaw State University Owls for winning the 2004 NCAA Division II Men's Basketball National Championship, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who about two debates ago acknowledged the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets who unfortunately lost in the NCAA finals to the great University of Connecticut basketball team. Today, we are on the floor acknowledging the champions, but, really, all of those in higher education who compete in the NCAA.

I am pleased to author and ask this House to consider its bipartisan support for H. Res. 594, which commends the Kennesaw State University Owls men's basketball team for winning the NCAA Division II national championship.

Kennesaw State won the last 26 games of its season, finished with a record of 34 and 5, and defeated the University of Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles in Bakersfield, California, by a margin of 84 to 59 in the national championship game.

This great university and its great athletic program won the Peachbelt Conference Championship for the 2003-2004 season. Head Coach Tony Ingle, who was named the Naismith Co-Coach of the Year in Georgia, along with Paul Hewitt of Georgia Tech, led Kennesaw State University to a truly outstanding year.

All-American Terrance Hill, who was selected All-American, one of the top 15 NCAA basketball players in the United States of America, was also chosen the most valuable player in the final game against Southern Indiana.

The Kennesaw State University Owls have a great athletic program, and this victory is a great tribute to their effort; but I think it is important when we talk about athletics that we talk about it in the context of student athletics as well, and this resolution affords me an opportunity to talk a little bit about this great university, which is celebrating its 40th year.

Forty years ago, two representatives from the State of Georgia, Representative Joe Mack Wilson and Representative Al Burruss, both of whom are not with us now but did a great job for so many years in the legislature, spawned the idea that with Atlanta's growth it was important to have an urban commuter college to support the universities that were in the area; and thus Kennesaw State College, at that time, became one of the 34 units of the university system of Georgia.

Their first president, Dr. Horace Sturgis, started that college on a shoestring on property donated by the Fry family, leading citizens of the community of Kennesaw.

From its humble beginning, Kennesaw State has grown to university status, and now has almost 19,000 full-time residential and commuter students studying medicine, studying nursing, studying business, and studying education. The academic achievements of its graduates is renowned in Georgia, and its graduate executive MBA program has been recognized in national publications as one of the finest in the country.

Dr. Horace Sturgis, its first president, was succeeded by Dr. Betty Siegel, its second president, who continues as president of this university now for more than 20 years. It is under her leadership that participation in athletics and NCAA status have helped to raise the visibility of that university, while at the same time it has remained committed to outstanding academic achievement and providing outstanding academic studies for those residents of the greater metropolitan area, and now, truly, the entire Southeast.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and pleasure for me to present H. Res. 594, commending Kennesaw State University's NCAA men's basketball champions, and also to commend all the universities and colleges in the NCAA who produce student athletes who go on into life to act as leaders in their communities and continue the great tradition of the NCAA.

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

Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I encourage all Members to vote in favor of H. Res. 594, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the committee chairman, and the ranking member for their cooperation in allowing this amendment to come to the floor today.

My colleagues are getting ready to hear a lot of numbers. They are getting ready to see a lot of charts; but in the end, facts are stubborn things.

The current base bill, as presented, if passing the way it does, will reduce the minimum guarantee in the States from 90.5 percent to a scope of 84 percent. The amendment presented today by me and a bipartisan group ensures that the minimum guarantee will remain at 90.5 percent of 93 percent, as it was allocated on scope under TEA 21. Those are the facts. That is what everybody needs to understand.

Do not let any chart with any separate group of assumptions lead my colleagues astray. They cannot make 90.5 percent of 84 percent more than 90.5 percent of 93 percent.

Secondly, some will say it is a donor/donee issue, and to an extent it is; but if the base bill passes as it is, it exacerbates the donor States. All the donor States are asking in this is to maintain where they were under the last highway reauthorization bill.

I hope my colleagues keep those facts in mind. Facts are stubborn things. This is about equity to our States.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The difference in the charts are the assumptions. In the chart in question, we met with FHWA this morning. They assume the same basis in allocating the charts. Therefore, the numbers change. Numbers are moving all around but 90.5 percent of 93 percent still beats the basis in TEA LU.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a real leader on this amendment.

(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a distinguished member of the committee and a good friend on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) is a good man with a difficult job, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is a good man with a difficult job, and there are 433 other Members of this House who are good men and women with a difficult job. But fair is fair, and facts are facts.

The money that flows in that we are talking about spending today is a user fee based on the use of roads in each of the States. It is only right that States get back at least a semi-equitable portion of the use of their roads that generated the revenue that this Congress has dedicated.

There are no losers in the base bill or in this bill in aggregate dollars, because there is more money being spent, but there are big losers in terms of States in this country who already are donor States and are being reduced to a lower percentage.

I do not have the luxury of promising designated projects, and I do not know where ultimately they will or will not go, and I am not complaining about that. I am not a chairman, and I am not senior. But I will tell you one thing: The people of Georgia elected me, and they sent me here to represent them, and they should understand and expect a basic minimum guarantee that is at least the same as they have been used to.

Fair is fair, and facts are facts. There are a lot of loose numbers floating around, because, very frankly, we do not know where all the numbers are. But there is one irrefutable fact: 90.5 percent of 93 percent beats 90.5 percent of 84 percent, no matter whether you use new math, old math or trigonometry.

This is about equity, this is about fairness, this is about representing the people who sent us to this Congress.

I am grateful for the opportunities that have been afforded all these Members, from Indiana, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Arizona, all over the country. This is not a provincial issue. This is a people's issue. This is about doing what is right.

We have great leadership on our committee. They have done a good job. But this bill needs improvement. The legacy for users in America should not be an inequitable distribution of the money they sent to Washington because of the use of their roads.

Fair is fair, and facts are facts. I urge a yes vote on the Isakson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to all of our men and women in harm's way in Iraq and our Operation Iraqi Freedom, but in particular to focus on the Grey Berets Special Operation Forces Weathermen.

Although the war had not commenced as of this date a year ago, already for weeks on the ground many brave soldiers from these forces had infiltrated Iraq, had set up meteorological operations and were communicating to our pilots, to our Air Force, to our Navy, our Marines and Army the critical weather information necessary for a safe, a death-free, as much as possible, and a successful invasion of Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Tonight, the Weather Channel Network will feature a 1-hour special on these brave men and women who went into harm's way before battle began, who hid, who worked, who got the data, and made sure our pilots, our Navy, our Marines, and Air Force had the information they needed.

I commend these brave Grey Berets. I commend the Weather Channel Network for paying special tribute to them on this day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Violence with the intent of injuring or killing a woman or any person is wrong and deserves the most severe penalty. Such an act of violence against a pregnant woman is an act against two lives and should be punishable as separate offenses.

We need only look to the Lacy Peterson case in California for clear and compelling evidence for the justification of two separate offenses. Any person intent in causing harm or death through violence and crime against any life must be held accountable for every life.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California has proposed a solution to a problem we do not have. When you walked here today, there was not a single person stopping you saying, you know, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong and section 702 ought not apply under Community Services Block Grants. When you go back to your e-mail, because we are not getting any mail right now, you do not have anybody writing you that they have been harmed because of a practice of 40 years of the Civil Rights Act of the United States of America.

When you read the news tonight or when you read it last night and you look at television tonight, you look at all of the problems in the world, there is not a single person complaining about community service block grants or about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

My dear friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) referred to the courts have not yet been challenged on this particular issue. Well, I will tell my colleagues one thing, and this is a guess and I stand to be corrected if anybody knows I am wrong, but since 1964, in the last 40 years, no act of Congress has ever been ruled on more frequently or more often or been challenged before the Supreme Court of the United States more than the Civil Rights Act. If what we were talking about repealing was so wrong and evil and punitive, then it would have long since been decided.

But the biggest tragedy of all, and I love the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George

Miller), he is a wonderful human being. And he and I are about the same age, and I have worked over the last 30 years on many charitable organizations and faith-based projects, and he has too, but he made a statement that kind of twisted the facts. He said this has not been a problem for 30 years; and he is right, it has not been. But if the substitute is adopted today, we have a big problem, because we are saying to a huge resource of individuals who, for 3 decades when they have been allowed to, have provided meaningful efforts, like the YMCA of Atlanta that delivers the Head Start program for our area; we have said to them, you know, your exemption of the Civil Rights Act no longer applies. You cannot participate unless you change. And who gets hurt? The 350 kids in Head Start get hurt.

Now, we are going to vote on this in a little bit, and I hope we will defeat the substitute, but I want to ask my colleagues to count something. On the way back to your office, count how many people you encounter who bring up the fact that there has ever been a problem with this act or who say thank you one way or another for voting for a substitute that is dead flat wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. I, having been a minority leader in the Georgia legislature for a long time, understand that role. But I have to clarify the opening remarks that were made by the leader from my perspective about the time, about the hours of the night and about the comment; and I think I have got it about right, that in the dark of night we passed legislation that benefited a few, referring, I think, to the tax legislation in the past.

Mr. Speaker, at 12:12, 12:15, 2:45, 3 a.m., and 6:45 in the morning, any morning, fishermen leave the wharves of San Francisco, California, to go fish for a living and pay taxes. In the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), in the garment district they work in those hours for the prime time of the evening to feed their families and pay taxes. In every one of our districts in those hours of the dark of night, Americans who finance this country and run it work doing an important job.

I will submit to you, if you ask them, reforming a Medicare system is important. I think if you asked them if dealing with prescription drugs for their parents and their seniors is important, they would tell you. I do not think any one of us on the campaign trail would ever belittle a fisherman at 6:45 on San Francisco's wharf or someone in the garment district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We can have our partisan arguments over procedure, but let us not ever belittle hard work for a good purpose because it is the American people that do that on the night shift every night that finance this country and allow you and I to be here.

I am proud to have stood up to cut their taxes and provide benefits to their parents.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed the votes. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: Rollcall number 620--``yes''; rollcall number 621--``yes''; rollcall number 622--``yes''; and rollcall number 623--``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a motion offered by Representative

Eddie Bernice Johnson to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2003. This motion would strike language in the energy conference draft that would prevent areas of the country from having to bear the economic burden of transported air emissions from other areas.

In 1998 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a policy that allowed the EPA to extend the attainment date for moderate or serious ozone non-attainment areas that were affected by transported pollution. That policy was successfully challenged in court in several regions of the country, where courts ruled that the EPA did not have the authority to extend the ozone attainment dates for those areas. The proposal in the energy bill is a good proposal that would simply codify a 5-year old policy designed to prevent an unjust result. I think we can all agree that downwind areas not attaining ozone standards should not be penalized for pollution they do not generate. An area that is ``bumped up'' to a higher non-attainment classification automatically forces a region into a more stringent and expensive regulatory regimen through no fault of their own.

The codification of the 1998 policy allows the EPA flexibility in remedying this situation but does not let downwind areas off the hook for attainment of the ozone standards. In order to qualify, an area must be a victim of pollution transported from another area that significantly contributes to non-attainment in the downwind area. The EPA must approve a plan that complies with all requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that are currently applicable to the areas, as well as includes any additional measures needed to reach attainment by the date for the upwind area. Finally, the extension of any date must provide for attainment of CAA standards ``as expeditiously as practicable'' but in no case later than the time in which upwind controls are in place.

In my State of Georgia and, more specifically, the metro Atlanta area, we have been working hard to improve our air quality and I am pleased to report that based upon the last 3 years of air quality data, we are almost in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. In fact, one bad air day, at one monitoring station has kept Atlanta from attaining the one-hour standard. As you know to be in compliance, each monitor must not have more than 3 ``exceedances'' over a 3-year period. The Conyers station reported 4 ``exceedances'' between 2001 and 2002.

Striking the language in H.R. 6 will roll back years of progress that we have made in the Atlanta region, while at the same time forcing us to adopt a regimen that will only serve to hurt business, commerce, and government through more regulation. The Senate and House energy conferees are working hard to achieve a balanced, long-term energy bill that provides adequate energy supplies at affordable prices. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Eddie Bernice Johnson motion to instruct and to give the EPA the flexibility it needs in implementing its ozone policy.