Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 451, had I been present I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 452, had I been present I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 453, had I been present I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 454, consideration of H. Res. 1015, I am not recorded due to travel delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 455, on Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the U.S., I am not recorded, due to travel delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 456, on Agreeing to the Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844), I am not recorded, due to travel delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 457, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to the Resolution Recognizing the centennial anniversary on August 5, 2006, of the Iranian constitution of 1906, I am not recorded, due to travel delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express outrage and disgust over United States officials who continue to leak national security secrets during wartime.

Most recently, someone leaked information to the media regarding the SWIFT program, which tracks financial transactions of al Qaeda associates.

Someone in the United States Government is subverting the war on terror, thereby putting our troops at greater risk and, in essence, prolonging the war.

Americans have the right to know who this person is and what their intentions are. In the words of the New York Times, it is ``in the public's best interest to know.''

I have introduced a resolution expressing that U.S. officials who leak sensitive information of national security secrets should be vigorously investigated and, if need be, brought to justice. If after a thorough investigation these officials are found to be disloyal to our country, they should be tried for treasonous acts.

While al Qaeda and the terrorists may appreciate these leaks, Americans certainly do not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the first anniversary of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court's misguided interpretation of the fifth amendment's restrictions on the taking of private property rights.

Both the Old Testament and Greek literature contain references to the government's ability to take private lands. However, in modern times, the exercise of eminent domain has been very limited and only used in public projects such as roads or the provision of electricity and telephone services.

Yet, nearly a year ago this week, the Supreme Court struck a devastating blow to this Nation's homeowners and small businesses when it ruled that government may seize private property and transfer it to another private owner under the guise of promoting community improvement for so-called economic development. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, ``The specter of condemnation now hangs over all property.''

The Kelo ruling inspired citizens and legislators in more than 30 States, including Florida, to enact laws to limit the scope of eminent domain. Their outrage was echoed in the words and actions of many of us here in Congress, and last November the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.

Yet, as quickly as our voices were raised in defense of our fundamental rights, they now seem to have fallen silent. H.R. 4128 lingers in legislative limbo.

In Riviera Beach, Florida, a poor, predominantly African American coastal community, city officials plan to use eminent domain to seize 400 acres of land to build a $1 billion waterfront yachting and housing complex, displacing about 6,000 local residents. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers meant by public use.

Are we to tell the American people that private property is no longer guaranteed under the Constitution?

Mr. Speaker, the battle of individual rights and liberties cannot be a part-time engagement. The expropriation of private property for private transfer in the name of economic development is not an act that speaks to the tradition of Robin Hood; it is one that betrays our fundamental constitutional rights.

As James Madison eloquently wrote in the Federalist Papers, private property rights lie at the foundation of our Constitution. ``Government is instituted no less for the protection of property than of the persons of individuals.''

The Kelo case illustrates only one front in a broader battle to preserve the individual rights granted to all citizens under the Constitution. We must apply equal vigilance to protecting intellectual property rights. Safeguarding property such as artistic, musical, and literary works, as well as the commercial branding tools, promotes entrepreneurship and creativity, and incentivizes honest innovation. Moreover, protection for intellectual property plays an ever increasingly prominent role in today's global economy, promoting trade and influencing foreign direct investment. American explorers rely on intellectual property protection.

Mr. Speaker, property rights are basic principles of individual freedom, whether it is real property or intellectual property of which we speak. Today, I rise to marshal my colleagues in defense of this fundamental right of property ownership for every individual in every district that we are honored to represent from homeowners to entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this strong, proactive defense of our liberties and freedoms from the preying forces of Islamic radicals in their jihad against the core values of our Western Civilization.

We did not choose this war. They picked the fight. The events of September 11 represented the final moment of spending our days as bystanders.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about the choices which precipitated the war in Iraq. The choice we face today, and Americans will face in November, is between two visions: full commitment to protect our Nation and prosecute the global war against terrorists, or complete surrender to Islamic extremists who want to destroy us. There is no middle ground.

Without maintaining pressure upon this global war, we face the grave risk of producing homegrown terrorism. These radical Islamists would rather take their fight to our streets, our communities, our neighborhoods.

The necessity of a proactive, robust strategy recently was reiterated by an ally too well-acquainted with the threat posed by radicalized forces.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said: ``We have to act, not react; we have to do so on the basis of prediction, not certainty; and such an action will often, usually indeed, be outside our own territory.''

America has acted. Our troops have responded honorably and successfully.

Are we safe for today? Absolutely. Should we cut and run from Iraq? Never.

As Winston Churchill said: ``We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long- drawn trial of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job.''

Mr. Speaker, I am writing in regards to yesterday's vote ordering the previous question on the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007. During the vote on the previous question, roll no. 261, I inadvertently voted ``yes,'' but intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment with my friend and colleague from Alabama (Mr. Davis). This would restore the funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI programs.

Created in 1992 to renovate existing public housing sites and replace them with new mixed-income housing, the HOPE VI grant program has been remarkably successful at revitalizing some of our most troubled and distressed communities. We have all seen stories of the conditions that exist in public housing developments throughout the Nation, dilapidated buildings and homes, infestations of insects and rodents, barely functional plumbing and sewage, high rates of violence and crime. These are the conditions that have overtaken too many of our public housing facilities, the conditions in which too many families are struggling to live and raise children.

This program is aptly named because hope is exactly what these grants bring to communities. I can speak firsthand of the outstanding results of this program. In the City of Bradenton, Florida, we have already been completely revitalized as a result of HOPE VI grants.

The result is Bradenton Village, a successful partnership between the local government, the private sector, and the Federal Government to restore and revitalize a community that only a few years ago was crumbling and suffering. Today, Bradenton Village is a vibrant and thriving area and a testament to HOPE VI grants. That success is not limited to Florida.

This remarkable program has been responsible for rebuilding substandard housing and replacing it with quality, affordable housing across the country. It is not just about bricks and mortar. By creating more options, giving a consumer more and better choices in housing, education, job training and job placement, HOPE VI grants transform lives.

If this amendment is adopted, the HOPE VI program can continue to deliver upon its promises. The Davis-Harris amendment seeks to restore $30 million to the HOPE VI program so that they can continue in their mission of revitalizing American communities. This $30 million is a far cry from the funding HOPE VI has received in the past; it is less than a third of the $99 million that the program received last year, for example, but it is enough to keep the program alive so that we can continue to help these communities where it is making such a tremendous difference.

The amendment is fiscally responsible, as the $30 million we are requesting for HOPE VI will be offset by reducing funding HUD's Management and Administrative Salaries and Expense Funds. Additionally, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the amendment budget authority is neutral and as a result, a net outlay savings of $22 million.

I know some of my colleagues have been concerned about the administration of the HOPE VI program. There have been complaints that the funds are not dispersed as swiftly or as efficiently as they could be. I share some of those concerns, and I want to see the program operate at maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

If the management of the program can be made more effective, by all means let us make it more effective. But let us not give up on the program just when it is making a difference in people's lives. Let us not give up on HOPE VI. Let us not give up on the strength and possibilities of our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Davis-Harris amendment. Let us keep hope alive.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an affordable housing crisis facing this Nation's most vulnerable populations.

Let me begin by recognizing the work of Chairman Knollenberg and the committee in crafting this bill. In particular, I commend the committee's work in addressing critical housing needs. However, I rise today to offer an amendment to strengthen an extremely important housing program for our Nation's low-income seniors and persons with disabilities.

HUD's section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program funds capital development grants and rental assistance contracts for nonprofit housing sponsors to develop and maintain housing.

Since its inception in 1959, the program has demonstrated how a successful partnership between public-private entities can maximize efficiency and quality of a Federal housing program as well as enhancing the sense of independence and self-reliance so important to the mental health of our seniors.

HUD's section 811, Disabled Housing Program, is the only HUD program that offers accessible and affordable supportive housing for nonelderly, low-income persons with disabilities. The program provides safe and affordable housing for people with the most severe disabilities who rely on SSI income of $600 or less per month.

Funds in this program are used to develop and improve fully wheelchair-accessible units of permanent supportive housing and to foster the integration of citizens with disabilities into open housing rather than confining them to nursing homes, public institutions, or imposing them on families and friends.

The section 811 program is supported by groups including the United Cerebral Palsy Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and the Arc of the United States.

As importantly, the restoration of funds would be offset by $12 million reductions in Housing and Urban Development Management and Administration and $3 million in General Services Administration costs, so there is no additional cost to America's taxpayers. In fact, CBO scores this amendment as a net outlay savings of $11 million.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would not bust the budget, nor would it expand the size of government. Simply put, it would increase the opportunities available to seniors and the disabled to find the affordable, safe and secure housing that they deserve. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

I want to commend the chairman for the bill which addresses important issues, including transportation, the war on drugs and Judiciary, and critical housing needs.

I acknowledge that there are robust funding levels for these programs in the underlying bill. However, our Nation's seniors in their golden years deserve access to affordable housing. We owe it to persons with disabilities to provide them with the opportunity to live their lives to the fullest.

This additional $15 million for these important programs is judicious from budgets of tens of hundreds of millions of dollars. But nonetheless, Congress must demonstrate its resolve to forthrightly pursue these important and noble goals.

I strongly urge my colleagues to step up and show your commitment to tackle the affordable housing crisis facing our Nation's most vulnerable citizens such as our seniors and persons with disabilities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Harris

Amendment No. 11: Page 100, line 18, after the dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.

Page 102, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

Page 111, line 3, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.

Page 195, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, on final passage of H.R. 5254, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the extraordinary service to the Nation of Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois. Many of us consider our election to Congress as a blessing and an opportunity to improve the lives of our constituents and our fellow Americans, and no one has merited that honor more than this esteemed and distinguished gentleman of irrefutable conviction and compassion.

In his more than 30 years as a Member of the House of Representatives and as chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Congressman Hyde has given the most vulnerable citizens a voice and focused our minds on the modern day horrors of child slavery, famine and genocide.

It was in his freshman term that colleagues would first become aware of his passionate devotion to the defense of innocent life, all human life, and at that time, tax dollars of all Americans were devoted to funding nearly 300,000 abortions annually.

Through the appropriations process, Mr. Hyde introduced an amendment to prohibit this practice and the adoption of the Hyde amendment forever changed the course of our national discussion about life and its protections.

I have considered my service on the House International Relations Committee under Chairman Hyde's stewardship as one of the most rewarding and enlightening experiences of my time in Congress. Not content to simply fund projects or engage in academic debates about geopolitics and Real Politic, our committee has played a critical role in shepherding the foreign affairs of the Nation.

The chairman's leadership has been indispensable as our Nation entered a new age of warfare and a time of bolder, more vibrant diplomacy.

A veteran of the committee, Chairman Hyde has been heard in the halls of Congress and countless administrations in the crucial interest about international arms control, the expansion of NATO, the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair and the long-overdue need for reform of the United Nations.

Earlier this year, Chairman Hyde eloquently addressed the challenges facing our Nation and the world, ``We are well advanced into an unformed era in which new and unfamiliar enemies are gathering forces, where a phalanx of aspiring competitors must inevitably constrain and focus our options. In a world where the ratios of strength narrow, the consequences of miscalculation will become progressively more debilitating.''

The chairman's cogent argument in favor of a robust foreign policy has fueled the committee during the 109th Congress. The committee has led the way in U.N. reform, holding to account the privileged few of the United Nations who turned a blind eye as Saddam Hussein violated international law and basic human rights.

He has called attention to the tragic human drama that began long ago and today is simply known as Darfur. And most importantly, Chairman Hyde has worked to ensure the voice of this body is heard on matters of nuclear proliferation, the untenable policies of terrorist regimes, and forged ahead where Americans will stand as the world struggles through this uninformed era.

Throughout his career, Henry Hyde has never failed to heed his own counsel nor to lose his way. And the principles of basic rights and wrongs have guided his path forward.

His most important contribution, however, has been as a husband, father and grandfather. I am certain it is this job that he has enjoyed most.

In closing, I wish to thank Congressman Henry Hyde for his extraordinary leadership, his friendship and his scholarship. We are truly a better people as a consequence of his service and for knowing him personally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the life of Chief Warrant Officer Kyle Jackson, a Sarasota native and an American hero.

By the measure of time, Kyle's life was too short. Yet in the words of Rudyard Kipling, he filled ``the unforgiving minute with 60 seconds' worth of distance run.''

A 28-year-old father of two, Kyle treasured the fullness of each and every day and treasured the fragility of every moment. His father, Gary, said that ``he wanted to do his job and wanted to do it well.'' As a father and a son, as a soldier and a marine, Kyle gave the full measure of his heart and soul to the performance of all of his duties.

After September 11, 2001, Kyle heard the call to serve his Nation and reenlisted in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, while stationed in Iraq, he answered God's call and gave to a grateful Nation his most treasured gift, his life.

Kyle is not unlike the many brave men and women who have died in our Nation's defense, except to his wife, Betsy, his daughters Alia and Keira, and all who were blessed to have shared a moment with him.

I wish to recognize Kyle Jackson for his extraordinary service to his Nation and to his family.

Mr. Chairman, later today, we will debate a natural gas exploration provision in this bill over which I have grave concerns. Thus, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Putnam-Capps amendment.

We are all acutely aware of the financial strain that higher gas prices place on average Americans. We imperil our national and economic security if we do not identify alternative energy sources to meet our Nation's ever increasing demand for energy.

The answer, however, is not in this provision. It will end the 25- year bipartisan Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, moratorium that Chairman Young spoke earlier about and, thus, allow construction of these gas wells as close as 3 miles from every coastal State.

From an economic perspective, this provision will jeopardize coastal economies that rely on healthy tourism industries for continued prosperity. Setting up natural gas wells visibly 3 miles from the shore would have a crippling effect on these coastal communities and the residents whose livelihoods they support.

Additionally, opening up our most sensitive coastlines to offshore natural gas drilling within these 3 miles could adversely impact the coastal waters, the fisheries and the marine ecosystems.

If the Putnam-Capps amendment is not adopted, States would be shut out from offshore oil drilling decisions. Coastal Governors and the State legislatures would be denied a meaningful role in decisions about where and when drilling might occur. They would be silent, yet subject to a Federal mandate.

Finally, the Secretary of Defense has indicated that areas east of the military mission line are vital to military operations and training. Specifically, Secretary Rumsfeld has indicated that language akin to what is currently in this bill would be incompatible with military operations and that it could be crucial to our Nation's security.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Putnam-Capps amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment by Mr. Putnam and Mrs. Capps. This is not just a Florida issue; it is a national issue. If the Putnam amendment is not adopted, the 25-year bipartisan Outer Continental Shelf moratorium will come to an abrupt end, thus allowing natural gas wells as close as 3 miles from every coastal State.

If the Putnam amendment is not adopted, coastal State economies that rely on a healthy tourism for their continued prosperity will be severely jeopardized, and coastal waters, fisheries, and marine ecosystems will be greatly jeopardized as well.

And, finally, there would be severe national security consequences when the military could no longer conduct military operations and training.

In closing, there is no doubt that high energy prices pose a serious challenge to our Nation's manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. However, the gas exploration provision in this bill will not provide Americans with short-term relief, nor will it lead toward an energy independent future.

I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Putnam-Capps amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am writing in regards to the Gohmert Amendment to the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. During the vote on the amendment, roll No. 117, I inadvertently voted ``no,'' but intended to vote ``aye.''