Floor Statements

I move to strike the requisite words.

And so do I.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that will strip $31.5 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Nearly 12 years ago, the Republicans slashed the 1988 budget nearly in half. In 1992, funding for the NEA reached an all-time high of $176 million. However, 4 years later, just 4 years later, they cut the funding to $99 million. Despite obstacles posed by a lack of adequate funding, the NEA persevered, and under the leadership of Chairman Gioia, instituted national programs to engage all Americans in the arts.

Recognizing its accomplishments, Congress began to support it once more and has approved funding increases by voice vote for the last 2 years. That support could not be more deserved, from Shakespeare in American communities to the NEA Jazz Masters, from American Masterpieces to the Big Read, the NEA has made art programs accessible to Americans in every congressional district.

Its programs enrich our culture by inspiring provocative community discussions and energizing the Nation's creative spirit. And every year, we hear more good news from the NEA.

Innovative programs are bringing arts to our schools, our community leaders and even our military bases, with Great American Voices, and are appreciated. This popular program has brought about 24 professional opera companies to 39 military bases across the country.

In 2004, the NEA initiated another program directed to military families called Operation Homecoming. It helped our troops and their families to write about their wartime experiences. The anthology of contributions was published by Random House in September 2006, and I encourage all of my colleagues to read it. The stories of patriotism and courage are truly inspiring.

What's more, the arts are improving our economy. This is terribly important. Americans for the Arts has just released a study on the economic impact of nonprofit art organizations. In 2002, the second Arts and Economic Impact Study told us that nonprofit arts organizations created $134 billion annually in economic activity. Just 5 years later, that number has gone up 24 percent to $166 billion. For the small investment we make, we bring back into the Federal Treasury $166 billion a year. That means that while they pump $63 billion into community economies, audiences are spending an additional $103 billion on local hotels, restaurants, parking, souvenirs, refreshments and other associated costs. And these numbers likely underestimate the total economic impact of the arts. New York City and Los Angeles were not even included so as to avoid skewing the national estimates.

So what do these figures mean for us? That $166 billion in economic activity

means $104.2 billion in resident economic income. It means $7.9 billion in local government tax revenues. It means $9.1 billion in State government tax revenues. It means $12.6 billion in Federal Government tax revenues, and 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs.

To put that in perspective, over 1 percent of the American workforce is employed in an arts-related industry. That is a greater percentage than the number of Americans who are police officers, accountants, lawyers, firefighters, telemarketers, computer programmers, mail carriers or professional athletes. What community in America could afford to lose those jobs?

A generous estimate of the total Federal investment in the arts is $1.4 billion, yet we earn about $12.6 billion. That is a 12-1 return on the Federal investment. No place else, Mr. Chairman, do we see a return like that.

Simply put, in every way, investment in the arts is sound public policy. Cutting funding would ignore everything positive we know about it, and it is the wrong policy.

I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for funding the National Endowment of the Arts at a level that reflects its important role in fostering creativity and making art accessible to Americans.

Mr. Chairman, your leadership and enduring commitment to this issue has been instrumental in keeping arts part of our national priorities. Thank you, and I thank the staff.

Of course I will yield.

Thank you very much for that. I won't take that much time.

Already?

I thank everybody, but I certainly want to thank Mike Stevens and Pete Modaff for their work on the decade-long fight to restore funding for the NEA. I encourage my colleagues to support the progress we've made in restoring funding to the NEA.

I will yield.

Thank you, Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this seems a familiar job for both Mr. Dicks and me and certainly for our cochair, Mr. Shays.

For a while, we thought we were over the years of mugwumpery when people thought the National Endowment for the Arts was something that they could kill without any cause. And as has been pointed out several times, the last 2 years, it has passed by voice vote, but it has certainly come back with a vengeance this year.

Let me talk about something for a minute that I don't believe has been discussed today, and that is the effect on our school children of art. We know for a fact that every school child in secondary school that has art for 4 years goes up 57 points on their verbal SATs, and we know it is attributable to art. We know that the days that art is in the schools that there is no absenteeism. We know that children that learn to create don't destroy. We know that in developing minds, the effect that art and dance and movement have on that. As a matter of fact, I think the University of California Davis has done extensive study showing the correlation between studying a keyboard and computers, between studying modern dance and math. We have all seen it over and over again. And we worry all the time about, one, how are we going to keep our children in school and, second, how are we going to make better students of them? This is cheap at the price, Mr. Chairman.

And Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite was saying that her district didn't get much back. I happen to have the figures here. As of January, 2007, her district is home to 967 arts-related businesses that employ 2,565 people who will be really sorry if she is successful here tonight.

Let me repeat again what we have said today because it has gone up exponentially every year. In 1992, we had $36.8 billion coming back into the Treasury. In the year 2000, we had $53.2 billion, with an audience expenditure of $80.8 billion. In 2005, which are the last figures we have, $63.1 billion organization expenditures and $1.31 billion audience expenditures. And if somebody can tell me one other thing that we do in this Congress that costs us less than $200 million that brings that kind of return back into the Federal Treasury, I will be astonished. I have been asking that for years. Nobody has ever come up with anything that is even close.

It is so important that we maintain these programs. It is so important that in the small communities that the regional theatres are kept alive. It is seriously important that children in all parts of this country are exposed to education through music and dance, that they are able to develop their own talents. But, moreover, I want to go back to what I said at the beginning. We know the effect of art on the developing brain. It is so important that many governors make sure that babies born in their States go home from the hospital with a CD of Mozart. We should try to make sure that we can continue this. It is important. Even to this day, even with this increase, we will not be up to the amount of money that we had in this budget when I came here in 1987.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

And, reclaiming my time, the return we get on it is enormous, Mr. Chairman, not just in money to the Treasury, which, of course, is important; not just in the myriad of jobs that it creates in every single district because that is terribly important too; but it is important because it says who we are. We work in a work of art, frankly, but it is the artists that have gone before us that tell us who we were, and it is the artists who will tell us who we are now, who we are going to be.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment before us.

The Foreign Operations Appropriations measure in its current form will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies globally, curb the deadly spread of HIV/AIDS, and improve infant and maternal survival rates throughout the developing world.

I want to commend my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lowey, for including a provision in this measure which provides a targeted exemption from the Global Gag Rule.

This will allow NGOs to receive U.S.-donated contraception and condoms.

For the past 6 years, the global gag rule has jeopardized access to comprehensive health care for women in developing countries. It has denied NGOs the resources they need to provide necessary medical advice and treatments.

The intent of the Global Gag Rule was to restrict abortion. However, by denying access to contraception and condoms, the Gag Rule denies women the opportunity to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place.

With population levels rising and efforts to prevent the spread of HIV increasing, the demand for contraception is higher then ever.

More than 200 million women around the world want to control when they have children and protect themselves from HIV, but they can't do so because they lack access to condoms and contraception.

Since the Global Gag Rule was reinstated, shipments of contraceptives from the U.S. government have been denied to 20 developing countries throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Its effect on healthcare in these nations has been devastating.

In the face of this, the Smith amendment would deny access to contraception and condoms to some of our most valuable NGOs reaching at-risk people of all ages.

What would the impact of this cutoff be?

Consider that access to contraceptives would prevent an estimated 52 million unintended pregnancies each year.

That, in turn, would prevent 22 million abortions. It would also prevent 23 million unplanned births; 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 1.4 million infant deaths.

Family planning helps women to have their children during the healthiest times for both mother and child. It has proved critical to the reduction of infant mortality in numerous developing countries.

Contraceptive access is also critical to disease prevention. According to the WHO, the leading cause of last year's 4.3 million new HIV cases was unprotected sex. Access to condoms is a matter of life and death.

And of those millions, how many were parents? More than 13 million children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to AIDS. That is 12 percent of all the orphaned children in the world--more than 10 million children.

Cutting off the flow of contraceptives would be an enormous step back for the health of the world's women, children and families. The underlying bill before us takes a commonsense approach to global health that will reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. It will also help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and improve infant and child survival rates.

This amendment would take us in the opposite direction. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on the Smith/Stupak amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 406, a resolution celebrating the accomplishments of Title IX. I would like to thank Congresswoman Hirono for introducing this legislation addressing what is an important issue for women's equality.

Title IX requires that schools and colleges receiving Federal funds provide female students with athletic opportunities comparable to those of male students.

But as critical as this is, we must all begin to realize that Title IX is about more than civil rights.

For many young athletes, the scholarship opportunities afforded by Title IX might be the only way they can go to college. What is more, female athletes tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school, are less likely to use drugs and smoke, and have a more positive body image, more confidence, and better self-esteem than non- athletes.

As a direct result of Title IX, women's participation in intercollegiate sports has skyrocketed, proving that interest follows opportunity. In 1972, about 30,000 women played college sports. Today, that number has increased by more than 450 percent. Similarly, in 1972, about 200,000 girls participated in high school athletics. Today, that number has increased by more than 900 percent.

It would be wrong of me to speak about Title IX without taking time to honor my dear friend and beloved colleague, Patsy Mink. In 1972, Patsy helped to enact Title IX and in honor of her valiant work, Congress renamed Title IX the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act.'' She struggled for 30 years to protect educational equity for men and women, and if she were with us today, I am certain that she would be proud of our continued fight to promote equality for all young women around the country.

While we celebrate how far we have come, we must also recognize that we still have a way to go. Women remain underrepresented in school sports, with men receiving 1.3 million more high school athletic opportunities and $148 million more athletic scholarship money each year.

In the face of such realities, I am proud to join my colleagues to support this resolution, a statement of our determination to recommit ourselves to the causes of education, opportunity, and equality in our society.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 491) providing for earmark reform, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What this measure does is absolutely guarantee that any earmark in a conference report that has not been passed in the House will be subject to a point of order even though the Rules Committee may have protected against all points of order.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet Wednesday, June 20, to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2008.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 20. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadlines to ensure the amendments receive consideration.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Appropriations. A copy of that bill is expected to be posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee on Tuesday afternoon.

Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the Rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take the opportunity to honor a dear friend, David Neeleman, on his distinguished accomplishments as Founder and CEO of JetBlue Airways.

I got to know David shortly after he formed JetBlue in 1999. At the time, airline service to and from Rochester was among the most expensive in the country. My constituents often went out of their way to fly from cheaper airports like Toronto or Montreal. Business travelers advised that economic growth in Rochester was limited by a lack of affordable flights to New York City.

David immediately recognized the potential of the Rochester market for an affordable airline. He and I worked closely to bring JetBlue to Rochester in the summer of 2000, and we have since worked together to expand JetBlue service in upstate New York. In its first year operating out of Rochester, JetBlue saved flyers $12.5 million. JetBlue's success, in turn, brought additional low-cost carries to Rochester and strengthened the regional economy. JetBlue has become New York State's biggest intrastate air carrier in and the largest domestic airline at New York's JFK International Airport.

David formed JetBlue with the goal of offering passengers low fares, friendly service and a high quality product. His success speaks for itself. Consumer Reports recently named JetBlue the number one airline for customer service. The company has been ranked number one in quality and overall performance of U.S. airlines for 3 consecutive years by the University of Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute and W. Frank Barton School of Business at Wichita State University. JetBlue was also rated ``Best Domestic Airline'' at Conde Nast Traveler's 2006 Readers' Choice Awards, the fifth consecutive year receiving the award.

I was saddened to learn that David decided in May to step down from running the airline every day as CEO to focus on more long-term strategic initiatives for JetBlue as chairman of the board. I credit David for fostering new economic growth in upstate New York, and having the savvy-entrepreneurial skills to build an airline that makes flying fun again. David has assured me that he will remain a very active chairman of the board and that JetBlue's finest days are ahead.

David has been a loyal friend to me and the people of upstate New York. I would like to honor him for his tremendous success as founder and CEO of JetBlue, and I wish him the very best in his tireless pursuit to bring humanity back to airline travel.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 473 provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2008. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution also waives points of order against the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI regarding legislating in an appropriations bill and appropriating for unauthorized programs.

During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may provide priority in recognition based on whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I am pleased to bring to the floor the first appropriations bill of the 110th Congress under a traditional open rule process. The security of our Nation concerns every American in every State, and it is a priority of every Member of this body. But while the effort to secure our homeland is a bipartisan one, there are clear differences between how the two parties approach it, and the bill demonstrates them.

We have before us legislation that provides more than $36 billion in critical funding needed to address security vulnerabilities identified by the Homeland Security experts. It is a fulfillment of commitments made by Democrats in implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, which passed the House with a bipartisan majority.

With this bill Democrats are increasing funding for homeland security by 7 percent, or $2.5 billion, over the amount appropriated for it last year. In fact, we are providing close to $2 billion more than what the President asked for in his request to Congress. These increases aren't excessive. They are, instead, the result of the Democrats' commitment to adequately fund security programs which in past years have been talked about, but not sufficiently supported.

These funding increases stand in stark contrast to past Republican decisions to cut money for vital security efforts and to impose unfunded mandates on State governments. My fellow Democrats and I have rejected the Republican proposals for across-the-board cuts in these areas. We feel that they would indiscriminately and unnecessarily sacrifice billions in needed funding for rail, transit, and port security, as well as for first responder grants. And, indeed, the sad truth is that these grant programs have suffered funding cuts every year since 2004. Compare that to the fact that this bill provides over $4.5 billion, nearly double the requested amount, for these critical areas.

More specifically, we have provided $400 million for port security, doubling the requested amount. Similarly, $400 million will go towards rail and transit security grants, more than the administration requested. And we will increase spending for firefighter grants by $138 million. The administration had wanted to cut these funds significantly, but we are increasing them.

At a time of heightened concern about our border security, the legislation will help to secure our borders by paying the salaries of 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, and it also improves the benefits package for Customs and Border Patrol officers to ensure higher recruitment and retention rates. After years of a lack of accountability and questionable government contracts, this bill promotes both accountability and oversight through reforms of the contracting process, and this is amazingly important.

I mentioned our borders a moment ago and I want to return to that subject very briefly. As a representative from western New York, the security of our borders is an issue of great concern to me.

Both our northern and southern borders face unique and separate challenges, and the bill addresses each in turn.

The 3,000 new agents funded by the bill will mean over 17,800 brave men and women will patrol our borders by the end of 2008. And at the same time, we will increase northern border funding by 33 percent, and 500 new agents will be placed there. As important as this is, border security efforts must never blind us to the deep connection we share with our neighbor to the north. Ours is a 200-year-old relationship that has benefited both of our nations immensely. In fact, I often say

that people of northern border communities don't see Canadian towns and cities as being in another country; instead, we see it as one nation with a river running through it.

The travel and trade which cross the northern border every single day between America and Canada are critical to our economy and to the northern economic security. We must never sacrifice our relationship with Canada in a misguided attempt to increase border security.

I have long said that economic security and physical security are not mutually exclusive; we can and we must have both. Unfortunately, the approach to northern border security currently advocated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State is flawed. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, of WHTI, will choke off legitimate travel and trade and sacrifice local economies unnecessarily by imposing onerous border-crossing requirements. WHTI, while well- intentioned, is simply unacceptable in its current form.

For 2 years, I have been working with fellow border members and concerned local groups and Canada and their government to fix WHTI, and I am proud to say today represents a major step forward in that battle. With Chairman Price's help, I inserted language into this bill that will withhold $100 million from the funds required to implement WHTI until a series of our demands have been met, demands that will push both DHS and State in the direction that they need to go, that is, away from requiring expensive crossing documents and towards commonsense, low-cost alternatives, and will keep our border closed to criminals, but open to the families and the businesses which make it so vibrant.

Additionally, the language will require the completion of a pilot project, which DHS is paying for and has not yet started, involving the State of Washington and British Columbia before WHTI can go forward. We see no point in paying for a project only to ignore it. The project will reveal the feasibility of the passport requirements in WHTI. With the 2008 winter Olympics being held in Vancouver, there will soon be an even greater number of Americans traveling across the border there. And this is a perfect way for us to test the requirements of WHTI before it is put in place nationwide, and we are going to make sure the results of that test are known.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill. It demonstrates the Democratic commitment to smart security, as well as to ensuring that the money spent by this government goes where it is needed most and is spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. These are our priorities. Our constituents deserve no less, and our security can afford no less.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled myself over the earmark process as the Republicans had it last year.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute more to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage Mr. Flake for a moment.

The chairman of the committee made it really clear that you are going to have 30 days to look at the earmarks, whose earmarks they are, and contact them if they are in the bill. The Rules Committee will decide whether you have the ability to strike them or not.

I yield to Mr. Flake.

I wouldn't want you to believe this is going to be the permanent way this is going to run. Given the vast number, the 32,000 that you mentioned, and the fact that we had no budget last year, no Federal budget last year, there was an extra strain on Mr. Obey; and I am confident that the next year will be different.

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

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

A lot of time has been spent today on the open rule and the open amendment process, and I'd like to give you and anybody else who may be watching some idea of what we can expect.

Some 94 Republican amendments were filed, 16 Democrats. One Republican is responsible for more than 50 percent of that side.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what they are. None of the funds can be used for supporting yoga classes.

None can be used to support art classes. None can be used to support dance classes. None can be used under other programs, any program that offers to support a dance class. And my personal favorite, none of the funds can be used for supporting puppet shows.

There isn't anything in the world in any part of this bill having anything to do with these amendments, but nonetheless here we are. We'll be debating this into the night, but I would ask everybody to listen to those amendments and decide which is serious on homeland security.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the resolution.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 473 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as

follows:

``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph

(a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with

respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report,

or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of

consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member

initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an

opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening

motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the achievements of a distinguished academic who I am privileged to call my friend, Dr. Albert J. Simone. Dr. Simone has served as the President of Rochester Institute of Technology since September 1, 1992, and during that time I have had the pleasure of working with him as he advanced the university's reputation as a leading career-oriented institution. He is retiring his post this year, and his vision and leadership will be sorely missed.

Before taking the helm at RIT, Dr. Simone served as president of the University of Hawaii System and chancellor of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He also taught at several well-respected institutions for higher education, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts University, Northeastern University, Boston College, Boston University, University of Cincinnati, and the University of Hawaii. But his achievements go far beyond administration and instruction.

Dr. Simone has authored countless publications, including books and journal articles on the application of mathematics, statistics, and computers to economics and business. He is a founding editor of Decision Sciences and is a past president and fellow of the Institute of Decision Sciences. And, although he is retiring, he will continue to make contributions to academia as he is currently in the process of collecting data for a book he will be writing on higher education.

A true trailblazer, Dr. Simone was the first American university president to officially visit North Korea, Vietnam, and Vladivostok when these regions were closed to the United States except for cultural and educational exchange. He oversaw the launch of three Ph.D. programs at RIT in the areas of microsystems engineering, computing and information sciences, and color science. And, under his stewardship, six bachelor's degree programs have been added to the university's offerings, including programs in information technology, software engineering, chemistry and polymer chemistry, biochemistry, advertising and public relations, and new media publishing. These new programs represent the university's understanding of the needs of the community outside of it, and help distinguish the City of Rochester as a center for innovation and entrepreneurship.

Dr. Simone led RIT's largest capital campaign, raising $310 million which enabled the university to add over 210 new scholarships, name three colleges, add seven new endowed professorships, build nine new campus facilities, add $90 million in new applied research initiatives, and add $34 million to the RIT endowment. This capital campaign enhanced RIT's reputation, made college education more accessible for more students, and gave students and faculty better resources to pursue their academic endeavors.

Thanks to Dr. Simone and the programs he has cultivated at RIT, the university has become a strong partner in regional economic development efforts. His endeavors have consistently reflected his belief that the `` `R' in RIT means something.'' Aside from creating academic programs at the university to address the business needs of Rochester and the surrounding region, Dr. Simone served as chairman of the board of the Greater Rochester Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and currently serves on the boards of the Rochester Business Alliance, the Center for Government Research, and the Finger Lakes Partnership for the WIRED initiative. His involvement in these and countless other community organizations has benefited not only the organizations themselves, but also the university and its students by establishing important networking opportunities and using the knowledge from those relationships to inform the direction of the university.

Dr. Simone has been recognized by several organizations throughout Western New York and the Nation for his outstanding leadership and community involvement. He was the recipient of the Entrepreneurial American Leadership Award from Partners or Livable Communities (2006), the YWCA of Rochester and Monroe County Racial Justice Award (2005), the Rochester International Council International Citizen Award (2004), the National Association of Student Affairs Professionals President's Award (2001), and the Rochester Business Alliance Civic Medal among many, many others.

RIT and the community surrounding it owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Simone, and I am honored today to have the opportunity to pay tribute to his service. His legacy will live on at RIT, and I look forward to seeing the university continue to flourish. I wish Dr. Simone and his wife Carolie, their four children, and five grandchildren the best during his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the achievements of a distinguished academic who I am privileged to call my friend, Dr. Albert J. Simone. Dr. Simone has served as the president of Rochester Institute of Technology since September 1, 1992, and during that time I have had the pleasure of working with him as he advanced the university's reputation as a leading career-oriented institution. He is retiring his post this year, and his vision and leadership will be sorely missed.

Before taking the helm at RIT, Dr. Simone served as president of the University of Hawaii System and chancellor of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He also taught at several well-respected institutions for higher education, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts University, Northeastern University, Boston College, Boston University, University of Cincinnati, and the University of Hawaii. But his achievements go far beyond administration and instruction.

Dr. Simone has authored countless publications, including books and journal articles on the application of mathematics, statistics, and computers to economics and business. He is a founding editor of Decision Sciences and is a past president and fellow of the Institute of Decision Sciences. And, although he is retiring, he will continue to make contributions to academia as he is currently in the process of collecting data for a book he will be writing on higher education.

A true trailblazer, Dr. Simone was the first American university president to officially visit North Korea, Vietnam, and Vladivostok when these regions were closed to the United States except for cultural and educational exchange. He oversaw the launch of three Ph.D. programs at RIT in the areas of microsystems engineering, computing and information sciences, and color science. And, under his stewardship, six bachelor's degree programs have been added to the university's offerings, including programs in information technology, software engineering, chemistry and polymer chemistry, biochemistry, advertising and public relations, and new media publishing. These new programs represent the university's understanding of the needs of the community outside of it, and help distinguish the city of Rochester as a center for innovation and entrepreneurship.

Dr. Simone led RIT's largest capital campaign, raising $310 million which enabled the university to add over 210 new scholarships, name three colleges, add seven new endowed professorships, build nine new campus facilities, add $90 million in new applied research initiatives, and add $34 to the RIT endowment. This capital campaign enhanced RIT's reputation, made college education more accessible for more students, and gave students and faculty better resources to pursue their academic endeavors.

Thanks to Dr. Simone and the programs he has cultivated at RIT, the university has become a strong partner in regional economic development efforts. His endeavors have consistently reflected his belief that the `` `R' in RIT means something.'' Aside from creating academic programs at the university to address the business needs of the Rochester and the surrounding region, Dr. Simone served as chairman of the board of the Greater Rochester Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and currently serves on the boards of the Rochester Business Alliance, the Center for Government Research, and the Finger Lakes Partnership for the WIRED initiative. His involvement in these and countless other community organizations has benefited not only the organizations themselves, but also the university and its students by establishing important networking opportunities and using the knowledge from those relationships to inform the direction of the university.

Dr. Simone has been recognized by several organizations throughout western New York and the Nation for his outstanding leadership and community involvement. He was the recipient of the Entrepreneurial American Leadership Award from Partners for Livable Communities--2006, the YWCA of Rochester and Monroe County Racial Justice Award--2005, the Rochester International Council International Citizen Award--2004, the National Association of Student Affairs Professionals President's Award--2001, and the Rochester Business Alliance Civic Medal among many, many others.

RIT and the community surrounding it owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Simone, and I am honored today to have the opportunity to pay tribute to his service. His legacy will live on at RIT, and I look forward to seeing the university continue to flourish. I wish Dr. Simone and his wife Carolie, their four children, and five grandchildren the best during his retirement.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 444, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 438 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 438.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 438 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, when my fellow Members of Congress and I speak and debate and cast our votes on this floor, we seek to reconcile our ideals with what is possible to achieve. We seek to do what is right in principle and necessary at any particular point in time, and pray that the two are one and the same.

That struggle has formed the foundation of the fight Democrats have waged since January, and it is the basis of what we are doing today.

This war was not challenged by the last Congress. It was supported by the last Congress. It was defended by the last Congress. Year after year, the Republican-led House kept this war alive.

But the public rightly lost faith in the war and those who would support it unquestionably. We all know what the result was.

The first opportunity the new majority had to change course in Iraq came with the first version of this bill. That legislation conditioned any future support for the conflict upon proof that our efforts were bearing some fruit. What is more, it would have ended the war by August 2008 at the very latest. Democrats, and some Republicans, united, and that bill was passed by the House.

Democrats in the Senate agreed, and the conference report that was sent to the President was even stronger. The same benchmarks were in place, but the war was to end 6 months sooner, by March of next year.

Our position was clear and unequivocal. For the first time since 2003, a majority of the United States Congress supported a new direction in Iraq, and it was a direction which would lead to an end to the war. The President vetoed that bill.

Our Constitution requires two-thirds of the Congress to overcome a veto. Two-thirds of the public stood squarely with the Democrats in this Chamber, and a handful of Republicans, who voted to overcome it. But what we needed was significant support from the other side of the aisle, and we did not get it.

Since then the President's made it clear that he will veto any legislation which even mentions the word ``timeline,'' and so he left my fellow Democrats and me with a choice. Some would have us ignore his words and simply send him a new copy of our original bill. I certainly relate to those feelings.

But as appealing as this may seem, I do not believe that it would be right. The President and his allies in Congress have put our soldiers in harm's way, and Mr. Bush is willing to keep them there no matter how much they suffer.

If this Congress delayed funding by continuing to back a bill we cannot pass at this time, we would not force the President to end the war. All indications are that he would leave our soldiers in Iraq, and without adequate funding, they would have to do even more with even less.

The Democratic Party is the party that supports our soldiers. We're the party that fights for them to have proper equipment, training and rest. We're the party that demands that they be given a sensible strategy for victory before going into battle. We're the party that demands that they receive proper medical care once they return.

We understand the mistaken judgment and obstinacy of the White House, and so we will not prevent any funding from coming forth from this Congress, an outcome which would permit the President to further add to the struggles that our troops endure every day.

Ultimately, of course, supporting the troops means ending the war entirely, and the legislation we bring to the floor today goes as far as is possible at this moment to achieving that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone listening to look at the victories that have been won here. The President previously said he would block any bill which contained benchmarks for the war, but now the only legislation the House will deliver to him contains no fewer than 18 benchmarks linking economic aid to improvements in the Iraqi situation.

Furthermore, the President and members of the Republican minority derided what they called ``unrelated spending'' during our first debate on this bill. They did so even though Democrats were seeking only to fill the gaps left by last year's failure to give us a budget.

But today we will pass a minimum wage increase. We will increase funding for military health care and for veterans' health care, and critically needed funding for agriculture disaster aid, children's health care, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

What is critical for all of our citizens to understand is that what is missing from this bill, a timeline to end the war, has been neither forgotten nor conceded by the Democrats in the Congress.

To the contrary, our path forward is clear. We will fight every day until the world's greatest deliberative body lives up to its billing and actually represents the will of the people its serves.

As I said before, at least two-thirds of the American people oppose the President's approach to Iraq and want this war brought to a close. It's time that two-thirds of this Congress wants the same. And we all know where the remaining votes have to come from.

Some days in Iraq are worse than others, but all days there are bloody. Four American soldiers died on Monday. Six more died on Tuesday. Three lost their lives yesterday. Three hundred twenty-one civilians have been anonymously murdered in Baghdad just this month, an average of 13 a day.

We must not be afraid to speak what is a simple truth. Every day that the Republican minority in this Congress stands by and empowers the President to perpetuate this war, they are saying the day's deaths in Iraq are acceptable. They're saying that those lives lost are part of a price they're willing to let others pay, other mothers, other fathers, other sisters, other brothers and other children, not theirs.

But they are alone. Official Pentagon assessments now speak of Iraq's ``civil war,'' meaning the Pentagon itself has broken now from the White House. The generals on the ground are admitting that our whole approach to Iraq must change. That dialogue, even with insurgent groups the President swore he would never talk to, must replace the open-ended warfare, which means the surge has failed.

And, of course, the overwhelming majority of the American people are not willing to accept the sacrifices asked of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians not because of a lack of will, but because of an abundance of reason. They correctly see the war as it is being fought today has never and will never yield the intended results, that our soldiers have been given a mission that has failed them and the people of Iraq time and time again.

The Democrats in both Chambers of this Congress stand with them. A handful of principled Republicans stand with us as well, but not yet enough.

The American people will continue to demand that their voices be heard. They will continue to demand their Representatives no longer willfully ignore their wishes, and my fellow Democrats and I will continue to demand the same.

Together we will struggle until our collective ideals becomes one with what is possible to achieve and until this representative Congress actually represents its constituents and forces the President to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it's my time to yield time following your speech.

Nonetheless, I think we do alternate.

I seek time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Perhaps my good friend from California has not heard the news. The Pentagon has now said that we are indeed enmeshed in a civil war and we now have a plan B. What we are going to do now is deal with insurgents so that we can try to pacify them and get pockets of peace somewhere, here and there in Iraq, never mind the Iraqi Government we have been holding up all this time.

This may be news to him, but as far as I am concerned, the Pentagon has really called it straight, and I consider it a break with what the White House has been telling us.

We know the President said time and again he would never negotiate with any insurgents. Well, that was yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I have one other besides myself.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Chair of the committee (Mr. Obey) to respond.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I will yield 30 seconds to Mr. Obey to respond.

I will yield 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion on May 21st, 2007, and the many fine clergy women and men of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice who continue this tradition of service. At the time the Clergy Service was founded, hundreds, if not thousands, of women died each year because of unsafe, illegal abortions. Many of the women suffering the health hazards of an illegal abortion were the most vulnerable, including women of color and low-income women.

The heroic clergy who came together to form the Clergy Consultation Service felt a moral responsibility to help women in need. The Clergy Service provided comfort, hope, and access to doctors who performed safe abortions and treated women with dignity and respect. Participating ministers and rabbis risked public censure and criminal prosecution to provide compassionate counseling and spiritual support to women with an unintended pregnancy. Today, the tradition of support for women has continued through the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and the Clergy for Choice Network.

Over one million American women sought illegal abortions annually at the time the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion was established. In 1965 alone, 17 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths were due to illegal abortions. The largest percentage of abortion deaths was among women ages 35-39 with five or six children.

In my home State of New York in 1967, the only legal reason for performing an abortion was to save the life of the woman. Senior minister of the Judson Memorial Church in New York City, Reverend Howard R. Moody, along with social justice activist Arlene Carmen, recognized that women needed reliable information on how and where to obtain safe, albeit illegal, abortions. With a small group of ministers and rabbis, Reverend Moody founded the Clergy Service. The New York Times ran the statement announcing the service.

``Confronted with a difficult decision and means of

implementing it, women today are forced by ignorance,

misinformation and desperation into courses of action that

require humane concern on the part of religious leaders.''

The statement continued:

``We believe that it is our pastoral responsibility and

religious duty to give aid and assistance to all women with

problem pregnancies. To that end we are establishing a

Clergymen's Consultation Service on Abertion which will

include referral to the best available medical advice and aid

to women in need.''

Following the announcement, the Clergy Service was inundated with calls and visitors from around the country seeking assistance. From its inception until 1970 the service grew from 26 ministers and rabbis in New York to 2,000 clergy in 25 States referring almost 100,000 women to doctors.

I commend Reverend Moody and the clergy men and women who joined the service over the years. Their selfless service is an inspiration to all who honor women as moral decision-makers and all who seek dignity and justice for women.

Madam Chairman, I am proud today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1585, the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, that will make certain the Niagara Falls Air Reserve base continues to play an integral role in our homeland defense.

The Niagara airbase is home to the 914th Air Reserve and the 107th Air Guard. Both units have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and are responsible for patrols over large metropolitan areas and key infrastructure throughout the Northeast and Midwest.

The value of the men and women serving at Niagara was clearly demonstrated during the tragic events of September 11th. The 107th was the first Refueling Wing to fly Combat Air patrols over New York City. In addition, a specialized unit of the 914th, trained in identifying and preparing the remains of disaster victims, was instrumental in the 9/11 recovery mission.

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission determined that the airbase would better serve our Nation if the 107th Guard unit became an Associate Air Wing of the 914th Reserve.

This is the first time in Air Force history that a Guard unit will associate with a Reserve unit. Predictably, the Air Force is facing a number of unprecedented challenges in attempting to shift assets around in order to meet the BRAC mandate.

I and the Western New York Congressional delegation have been working with the Air Reserve and the Air Guard for over a year and a half to determine the optimal allocation of aircraft at the base to ensure that both units can adequately complete their missions. The uncertainty surrounding what comes next at Niagara has created a lot of anxiety for the service members at the airbase and the Western New York community. The Air Force must determine a way forward with Niagara this year to ensure that the base continues to play a key role in protecting our Nation.

Accordingly, my amendment simply directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services detailing the Air Force's plan for future aviation assets at the Niagara airbase. I want to thank Chairman Skelton and his staff for working with me to draft this amendment, and I urge the House to adopt it.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 387.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 387 provides for consideration of three bills, including the supplemental appropriations for the Iraq war.

It is striking to realize that for 4 years the war in Iraq has been funded by supplemental appropriations measures. From the beginning the White House has refused to plan ahead. Instead it has counted on Congress to accept its demands and pass one supplemental bill and then another time and time again, with no end in sight and no accountability required in return.

The American people have rejected a House that blindly accepts the administration's predictions about Iraq, all the while ceding its role in deciding matters of war and peace, the most solemn responsibility given to the Congress.

My fellow Democrats and I promised a new way forward. And so the first funding bill that we delivered to the President reconciled our party's conscience with the brutal realities the war presented to us, realities that we, unlike some in the administration, are willing to acknowledge.

We sought then, as we do now, to end this war but to do so responsibly, without adding to the suffering the Iraqi people and our soldiers have already experienced.

Our first bill provided the President with all of the funding he requested but attached conditions to it. We asked for the President to stand before the Nation and justify the war. We asked him to show how it was meeting the objectives that he himself had set out: the

promotion of political progress in the country and the increase of internal security in Iraq, all of which is his responsibility. And we said the war would not go on forever, that it must have an end, not an irresponsible end but an end.

The President rejected our offer out of hand. He told us that while he would never compromise, we had to.

Mr. Speaker, stubbornness is not the same as strength. Being obstinate is not equivalent to having conviction. This President famously told the world that he would refuse to alter his policy in Iraq even if, as he put it, nobody stood by him except his wife and his dog.

But he is not making decisions that impact only himself. The weight of his decisions are being borne by the American people and the people of Iraq. His decisions are costing American lives and they are costing Iraqi lives. They are overstretching our military. They are undermining the national security of this Nation. And they are not improving the wretched conditions of the Iraqis the war is theoretically helping.

The President must not be allowed to ignore everyone: the majority of the generals, the majority of the House, the majority of the Senate, the majority of the Nation, and the overwhelming majority of the world. He must not be allowed to ignore everyone when it is they who are bearing the burden of his war and suffering the consequences of his administration's mistakes. He must understand that his opinion, as sincere as it may be, is not the only one that matters. He must yield.

The bill we are considering today will, once again, give him the chance to acknowledge the demands of the citizens of this country. They are demanding a change of direction in Iraq, and this bill delivers it.

This legislation will fund military operations in Iraq between now and July. By then the President's surge plan will be in full effect, and its impact, either positive or negative, will be obvious. The President will report to Congress on the state of political and military progress in Iraq, and then we will vote on whether or not to provide the remaining funds that have been requested. Our degree of financial support at that point will be based not on endless promises or rosy scenarios, but on concrete reality on the ground in Iraq. Accountability is being introduced into the conduct of this war.

Mr. Speaker, let me also add that during the last debate on this supplemental, the President and his supporters told us the measure was ``unclean,'' that it contained spending unrelated to the war effort.

That spending, Mr. Speaker, was for critical projects the last Congress failed to fund by not passing any budget at all for the year 2007, which included funding for veterans care, recovery from Hurricane Katrina, health insurance for children, home heating oil for low-income families, and much more. In other words, there is nothing dirty about it. My fellow Democrats and I refuse to abandon it. We are going to fund these vital and important projects because people are counting on them. What is more, we campaigned on increasing the minimum wage, and this supplemental spending legislation will do that as well. And I hope we don't hear anything more about so-called ``unrelated spending.''

Mr. Speaker, it is long past time for this body to abandon the destructive rhetoric that has labeled this plan a form of ``surrender.'' It is time to stop branding the Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans, who seek to end this brutal conflict as ``defeatists.''

We want our country to be secure. We want our military to be sound. We want the Iraqi people to be able to live with dignity. But we see that this war fought in this way is undermining all of those goals. And we are not alone. We speak for a clear and vocal majority of the American people, and we represent their wishes. For the sake of our citizens, for our soldiers, and the people of Iraq, we will be heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who will explain why we didn't deal with agricultural disasters last year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to contradict my colleague from California, but we do not know the pain of this war. Members of Congress know it a little better than most people because we try to comfort the bereaved and visit the ones who are maimed, but we don't really know the pain of this war. We can't know about the 35,000 or more young people with life-altering wounds, people 18 and 19 years old who will live with them for the very rest of their lives.

We don't know the loss other people have sustained because nothing much is required of us except to pay the bill of $10 billion a month, mostly borrowed from China, so we can finance this war.

There is no compelling reason why we should go on forever with this. Nothing that we are asking the President to put on the Internet is anything but classified and who is going to believe it anyway.

If the President is running out of money for the troops, it is simply because he vetoed the money that he asked us for that we sent to him. The fault, the blame lies exclusively with him.

And with that I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this rule on both sides of the House. Obviously, numbers of them didn't want to come down and talk today. Please vote for this rule. Cleanse your conscience. Let's do a good thing today for those people who count on us in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.