Floor Statements

Thank you so much.

It might appear like we are having a debate about whether we should send STEM graduates--those with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math--to faraway lands to work for companies to compete against us, but this debate is not about that because, on the need for STEM visas, there is no debate. The real debate we are having today, in creating STEM visas, is whether to shut the door to opportunity to others who contribute to the United States of America.

I haven't seen one letter from Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Intel or the high-tech industry that says to eliminate 25,000 to 30,000 visas to those from Africa and give them to the high-tech industry. I haven't seen one letter that says that, and they know that. It's just something they want to do, and they want to poison this well with what I think is bad policy. Based on the immigrant stories we heard from almost every speaker at the Republican and Democratic conventions, I would guess all of us here would welcome to the U.S. any decent, hardworking person with enough heart and guts to pursue his biggest dreams, but that's not what this bill does. I wish it did.

Imagine if those millions who passed through Ellis Island had been given a test when they arrived. If they were gifted in science and math, they were in. If they were simply hardworking men or women in search of better lives, prepared to sweat and toil in the fields or in our factories, they wouldn't have been good enough under this bill. Think about it. Where would we all be if we had to pass that test--the Pelosis and the Palazzos, the Boehners and the Blumenauers, the Schakowskys and the Lipinksis, the Kennedys and the Kuciniches, the Romneys and--yes--the Rubios?

When my parents came from Puerto Rico, they didn't need a visa. They just had a sixth-grade education and a ninth-grade education. Under this bill, they would say, Not here and not in this America. You're not welcome. My mom worked in a factory, and my dad drove a cab, and they worked hard every day. They worked hard every day to make this. They sent their children to college, and one of them today serves in the Congress of the United States.

They lived the story of America. They came with nothing but hopes, and they played by the rules and achieved great things, not necessarily for themselves but for their children and now their grandchildren.

Has America benefited? Could we attract the smartest and the brightest? Yes. But America is also a better Nation because we attract those with the most heart and soul to make something of themselves. Let's defeat that bill so we can continue that great American tradition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.

Next year, at the beginning of the 113th Congress, I will reluctantly assume the title of Dean of the Illinois delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I say reluctantly because two things are true. One, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would never want to be a Member of a Delegation that would have me as its Dean. Secondly, I have tremendous shoes to fill and a hard act to follow.

The current Dean is my friend, colleague, and mentor Rep. Jerry Costello, who will leave the House at the end of his current term. It saddens me that he is leaving the House and bequeathing the title of Dean to me.

Jerry was re-elected twelve times to represent the people of the exotic and--at least to us in the City of Chicago--distant lands in southern Illinois, anchored by the City of Bellville, Jerry's home town. He has served his district, the people of Illinois and the people of the United States with distinction for 24 years.

His diligent work as a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Aviation Subcommittee, and the Science, Space and Technology Committee teaches an important lesson to young Congressmen and women: specialize. Jerry has made transportation a central theme in his career and the work he has done to ensure that infrastructure and transportation systems in Southern Illinois are world class is but one testament to his success.

Together with his wife, Georgia, the distinguished President of Southwestern Illinois College, I know Jerry will continue serving the people of Illinois in some capacity. It is in his nature.

When I came into the House in 1993, Jerry had already been here for more than two terms and helped young people like me find our way. Over the years, we developed a friendship and a kinship. Even as Democrats from the same State, I could not always vote for what he supported and he could not always vote for what I supported, but we could always look beyond that.

The people of Illinois may not even realize it yet, but they will miss Jerry in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Caucus probably doesn't realize how much we will miss Jerry. But I know how much I will miss Jerry and I wish him tremendous success and good luck.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no greater cause for celebration in America than when we expand rights to more of our people. We are never truer to our American values than when we look at a group of people and demand that they be treated with dignity and respect. We are never more patriotic than when we protect and expand the rights of honest, hardworking people, when we live up to our original promise of liberty and equality and give meaning to those American words: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.''

Right now, we have reasons to celebrate because, shortly, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House are scheduled to announce guidelines on the application process for DREAM Act-eligible immigrants to defer deportation and get work permits so they can take a vital step toward living freely and fully in the only nation that has ever truly been their home.

Today, I want to congratulate the DREAM Act-eligible youth who have fought so hard for this right, the 1 million of them that will be taking a step forward. And I want to remind DREAM Act-eligible youth that because of the intelligent action by President Obama on August 15, they will be able to apply for work permits and protection from deportation.

On August 15, Mr. Speaker, they will take a step out of the shadows and into the light. I encourage them to take this step, and I want them to know that help and resources are available. But first, a warning: any progress on immigration is soon followed by some unscrupulous attempts to make money off the backs of deserving immigrants. So I say to my friends today: Be careful.

There is no reason that applying for relief through President Obama's use of prosecutorial discretion should be expensive or cumbersome. If someone says the only way for a DREAMer to apply is to write a big check, my advice to the DREAMer is they should run in the other direction; they are being lied to. But DREAMers should run toward help because help is on the way.

In Chicago yesterday, the Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights and I announced a workshop that will be held on August 15--the very first day the 1 million young people can apply for work permits and come out of the shadows and get deferred action from deportation.

The event will be held at Navy Pier in Chicago. Mayor Emanuel, myself, and Senator Durbin--who has played such a leadership role on the DREAM Act for years--will be there. We will have all the resources anyone needs to apply that day. It will be free. We will answer questions and we will provide the resources necessary to thousands of young people that we expect will attend.

And we are not alone in Chicago. All across the country, plans are being made by immigrant advocates and organizations and elected officials for how to help DREAM Act-eligible youth to apply for their work permits and a stay of deportation. Tomorrow, I will be joined by my colleagues to talk about resources available coast to coast.

As one important step, I encourage people to visit this Web site: dreamrelief.org. That's dreamrelief.org to find out more about who is eligible, how to apply, and where people can receive assistance, dreamrelief.org.

On August 15, across America, thousands of honest, hardworking, law- abiding DREAM Act-eligible youth immigrants should be celebrating by lining up and taking that historic step toward equality. It's a day of long-overdue fairness for our young people, and I don't want one eligible young person to miss this opportunity.

I want our young DREAMers to demonstrate to America on August 15 what

they've demonstrated to their communities and their families and their friends their entire lives: they've worked hard and earned this right by excelling in school, by helping their neighborhoods, and by serving our Nation.

I know who you are--you are the next generation of leaders of our great Nation. On August 15, show all of America who you are. We need your example because it's vital to remember that every time we've expanded civil rights in America--every time--someone tried to stand in the way. From women's suffrage, to voting rights for African Americans, to Americans with disabilities, to marriage equality, someone will raise their voice against expanding the rights enjoyed by some Americans to all Americans. There is always someone who says these rights, these liberties, this equality, it's for me, it's not for you.

So I ask my DREAM Act-eligible friends--1 million strong--on August 15, show America who you are and remind America that freedom and equality is for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to announce today that more than 100 of my colleagues have joined me in writing to President Obama to thank him for his action to use prosecutorial discretion to stop deportations for DREAM Act-eligible immigrants.

We are pledging our continued and strong support for this policy. My colleagues and I, 104 of us, are standing together to make clear that we think America is a better place with the immigrants who will be helped by this new policy.

Of course, not everyone agrees. Progress doesn't always mean consensus. My colleague, Mr. King of Iowa, wants to sue the President, take him to court, because Mr. King is determined to deport every last young person who is DREAM Act eligible. Mitt Romney says that he would veto the DREAM Act and does not support steps to protect these very young people.

Let's remind ourselves exactly who the Republican candidate for President believes should be deported.

DREAM Act-eligible young people who have lived in America for more than 5 years. Most of them were brought to our Nation as children, many of them as infants, toddlers, yes, babies. They've stayed away from crime. They attended our high schools and colleges. They are no different from your children or my children. They regularly excel at school. Some are valedictorians. They are athletes and musicians and leaders. Many of them want to serve our Nation in the military. They are leaders in their high school ROTC. They are, in every sense of the word, except for the very narrow, exclusive sense promoted by Mr. King and Mr. Romney, outstanding young Americans.

Apparently, when Mr. King and Mr. Romney look at the winner of your high school science fair or a young immigrant eager to become a soldier, they see a threat to our national security.

Sensible Americans see their friends and neighbors, young people who want to make America better. They want these young people to be treated fairly, and they also want our Nation to be safe.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. King and Mr. Romney a question: In a world where our law enforcement officials have limited time and resources, who should they be focused on investigating, detaining, putting behind bars, rounding up, and deporting--the captain of your high school chess team or a drug smuggler?

I know the answer. I think most of Americans would agree. Immigrants who break the law should face serious consequences. Immigrants who are busy studying for exams should simply be left alone. That's not just my opinion or just the opinion of immigrants or advocates or 104 of my colleagues.

Despite those few who would like to sue the President and force him to kick high school kids out of this country, President Obama's actually legally and responsibly using prosecutorial discretion to leave young people alone and focus instead on actual criminals.

It is the consensus legal opinion among experts. Even the Supreme Court has weighed in. In their Arizona decision last month, the Supreme Court wrote:

A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.

``Whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all,'' says the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court's opinion is not enough, then I submit the opinions of Members of Congress, including those of Members I don't often agree with when it comes to immigration. These Members include Lamar Smith, the chairman of our Judiciary Committee; David Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee; and even Brian Bilbray, chairman of the House anti-immigration caucus.

Just a few years ago, as this letter notes, they weighed in forcefully on prosecutorial discretion. In a letter to a previous President's administration, these staunch opponents of immigration reform enthusiastically defended prosecutorial discretion, writing: ``The principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established.'' They wrote that legal experts at Immigration Services ``apparently well- grounded in case law'' show that the Immigration Services has prosecutorial discretion in the initiation--the beginning--and the termination of deportations.

It's simple, really. The Members of Congress who signed this letter with me today, the Supreme Court, President Obama--and yes, even Lamar Smith and dozens of his colleagues just a few years ago--get it. It is time to leave hardworking immigrants alone. When we do, our law enforcement officials can focus on catching the actual bad guys.

July 18, 2012.

President Barack Obama,

The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue,

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President: We write to thank you and express our

appreciation for your recent decision to grant ``deferred

action,'' protection from deportation, and work permits to

certain young people who call the United States home and who

are not an enforcement priority for the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS).

We welcome the opportunity to ensure that our constituents

who fit the criteria for relief are among the estimated

800,000 individuals whose lives will forever be changed as a

result of your leadership. DREAMers coming forward to apply

will mark a new chapter, but not the last chapter, in a long

struggle for inclusion in society. The new policy represents

an important down payment toward achieving broader reforms in

the future.

The implications of your policy are already reverberating

well beyond those who are potentially eligible for deferred

action. With this announcement, you have changed the public

discourse about immigration and immigrants, and our

communities are now excited and hopeful. Even those who

attack immigrants for political purposes are second guessing

their negative posture toward the young immigrants you are

protecting. You have opened the door to reform, and people of

all political stripes recognize that change is coming and is

inevitable.

We recognize that there are those who will want to take the

power of discretion away from you and the Executive branch.

Like you, we agree that you are on solid moral and legal

ground and we will do everything within our power to defend

your actions and the authority that you, like past

Presidents, can exercise to set enforcement priorities and

better protect our neighborhoods and our nation.

Despite this vital reprieve for a deserving group of

promising individuals, we also understand that it does not

diminish the need for a permanent solution and comprehensive

immigration reform. Mr. President, we stand committed to

fixing the broken immigration system once and for all, and we

are ready to fight for a permanent solution that benefits all

children and families, the economy, our national security and

our nation.

We thank you again for your actions on behalf of DREAMers.

We stand ready to work with you to ensure the policy's

success and to use it as a stepping stone for broader relief

and future legislative action.

Sincerely,

Luis V. Gutierrez; Joseph Crowley, Xavier Becerra; Steny

Hoyer; Howard

Berman; Charles A. Gonzalez; Jared Polis; Susan A.

Davis; Zoe Lofgren; Judy Chu; Nancy Pelosi; John

Conyers, Jr.; Lucille Roybal-Allard; Michael M. Honda;

Barbara Lee; Gene Green; Raul Grijalva; James P. Moran;

Eleanor Holmes Norton; Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Janice Hahn;

Peter Welch; Jose E. Serrano; Betty McCollum; Ruben

Hinojosa; Lois Capps; Yvette D. Clarke; Laura

Richardson; Silvestre Reyes; Hansen Clarke; Terri

Sewell; Jerrold Nadler; Bob Filner; Dennis Cardoza;

Frederica Wilson; Charles B. Rangel; Edolphus ``Ed''

Towns; Jan Schakowsky; Jackie Speier; Gregorio Kilili

Camacho Sablan; Maxine Waters; Bobby L. Rush; Pedro R.

Pierluisi; Carolyn B. Maloney; Gwen Moore; Louise M.

Saughter; Ted Deutch; Chaka Fattah; Rick Larsen; Jim

McDermott; George Miller; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,

Jr.; John Lewis; John W. Olver; James P. McGovern; Joe

Baca; Rush Holt; Robert A. Brady; Eni Faleomavaega;

Adam Smith; Al Green; Grace F. Napolitano; Earl

Blumenauer; John Garamendi; John B. Larson; Jesse L.

Jackson, Jr.; Doris O. Matsui; Keith Ellison; Fortney

``Pete'' Stark; Dennis J. Kucinich; Lloyd Doggett;

Corrine Brown; Linda Sanchez; Gregory Meeks; Sam Farr;

Gary C. Peters; Eliot L. Engel; Lynn Woolsey; Ed

Pastor; Maurice Hinchey; Albio Sires; Mike Quigley;

Loretta Sanchez; Danny K. Davis; Nita Lowey; Mike

Thompson; Anna Eshoo; Marcy Kaptur; David Cicilline;

Russ Carnahan; Nydia M. Valazquez; Chris Van Hollen;

Steve Israel; Diana DeGette; Edward J. Markey; Henry A.

Waxman; Karen Bass; Jim Costa; Steve Cohen; Henry

Cuellar; Barney Frank; Ben Ray Lujan; Sheila Jackson

Lee; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes yesterday. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 469 and 470.

Mr. Speaker, we've all seen bad horror movies, the ones where every time you think it's safe to relax and take a deep breath, the monster is right behind the door. You know the drill. No matter how hard the teenagers in the basement or the swimmers in the lake or the hikers in the wood try to get away, the creature just can't be stopped.

Well, the people of Puerto Rico are stuck in their very own horror movie, one that just won't end, and one with a villain that just won't go away, except the villain isn't a guy wearing a hockey mask or carrying a chain saw. The villain is a bunch of government insiders, and the horror story is about their desire to build a huge gas pipeline.

It's a pipeline that the people of Puerto Rico don't want, that experts have said that Puerto Rico doesn't need, and environmentalists have testified will destroy the natural beauty of thousands of acres on the island. And this might be the scariest part. It's a pipeline that Puerto Rico doesn't even have enough natural gas to operate.

The name of the pipeline is Gasoducto, and the horror story started in 2010. About all that has been missing from the script is bad music and vampires. The story has featured the Puerto Rican people's tax dollars, as much as $100 million of them, paid to consultants and lobbyists hired by the government, including close friends and allies of the Governor and his ruling party.

It's featured the government hiring a consulting team of former high- ranking Army Corps of Engineer employees based in Florida. The consultants magically convinced the Army Corps to take review of the project away from the local San Juan, Puerto Rico, office. Where did they move it to? Surprise--to Florida, right down the road from where the consultants live and used to work.

It has featured ever-increasing cost estimates of the project, ballooning to nearly $1 billion. It has featured huge protests and marches by the Puerto Rican people against the pipeline and public opinion polls showing three-quarters of the people strongly opposed to the project.

It has featured power supply experts who studied the government plan and noticed one important flaw. Just as Casa Pueblo, countless technical experts, environmentalists, scientists, and I have insisted to the Army Corps all along, the only current source of natural gas supply available for this project in Puerto Rico was too small for a pipeline to even work.

And finally, it even featured--after tens of millions of dollars spent--the Governor appointing his own commission to make recommendations about how Puerto Rico can make better use of natural gas to meet its energy needs.

The commission, appointed by the very Governor who dreamt up the Gasoducto plan, made three recommendations. None of them--I repeat-- none of them included Gasoducto. Not one. Actually, they discarded it and called it unviable.

Finally, the people of Puerto Rico thought the monster must be dead. Finally, we can stop sending tax dollars to connected government insiders, we can stop worrying about our environment, we can stop wondering where in the world the natural gas for a billion dollar pipeline will actually come from. But that's not how horror movies work.

Last week, the Governor was quoted in the press as saying Gasoducto was still alive. Why? Because the Governor of Puerto Rico claims that the Assistant Secretary of the Army, who oversees the Army Corps of Engineers, has asked him personally not to withdraw the Gasoducto application. Assistant Secretary Darcy wants him, the Governor, to wait a while before pulling the plug, which is already on life support for this monster.

Personally, I find this hard to believe. I don't know why an Assistant Secretary of the Army would want to keep a monster alive that is an unneeded, unwanted insider boondoggle that isn't even wanted by the regime that proposed it in the first place. But I've written to find out, is it true and how could this be?

I expect answers, just like I expect answers on my ongoing request to the Army about how the Army Corps of Engineers has handled this application and why the review was moved away from their employees in Puerto Rico and closer to a bunch of consultants who used to head their office in Florida.

When it comes to Gasoducto, enough is enough. Like in most bad monster movies, Gasoducto has been almost impossible to believe from the very first scene, a silly, unnecessary waste of time and money. It's time to roll the credits and declare this monster dead once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes yesterday and today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 452, 453, 454 and 455 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 456, 457 and 458.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for a vote in the House chamber on June 21, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 411.

I was also unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for one vote on June 26, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 414, 416 and 419 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 412, 413, 415, 417, 418, 420, 421, 422 and 423.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the immigration policy of the State of Arizona, a policy that Mitt Romney has called ``a model for America,'' to be largely unconstitutional. I applaud the Court for stating that immigration enforcement is a Federal responsibility.

The ``show me your papers'' law allows police to demand that individuals prove that they are legally in this country. This law is not just a problem for people who are undocumented. It's not just a problem for immigrants. It's not just a problem for anybody who looks like they might have come to America from somewhere else. It's a problem for every American who cares about freedom. It's a problem for all of us who believe no person should be treated as a suspect based on how they look, their accent, or the spelling of their name.

In Arizona today, all that stands between you and a legal nightmare is whether a police officer feels there is a reasonable suspicion to inquire about your country of origin. Yet Arizona politicians will tell you, with a straight face no less, that they can

apply this law without using racial profiling, without assuming that someone named Gutierrez isn't less likely to be in this country legally than someone named Smith.

That's an amazing skill. Maybe with practice, we can all become like Arizona politicians and police officers who are able to telepathically determine who to accuse of not belonging in America.

But let's take a quiz together this morning and learn how to pick out the suspect. Here are two journalists, Geraldo Rivera and Ted Koppel.

At a traffic stop, to the untrained eye, we might guess that Geraldo Rivera, for some reason that clearly has nothing to do with the way he looks, might not be from America. Geraldo Rivera's mustache wouldn't confuse an Arizona law enforcement professional. They would know that Geraldo Rivera was born in Brooklyn, New York, and that Ted Koppel was born in Europe, in England, where his parents moved to flee from Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Round two, this for our young fans of C-SPAN. This is Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez. These young people have overcome their very different national origins and become apparently a happy couple. I'm sure Justin helped Gomez learn all about American customs and feel more at home in her adopted country. Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry, because I'm not a trained Arizona official, I somehow got that backwards. Actually, Ms. Gomez, of Texas, has helped Mr. Bieber, of Canada, learn about his adopted country.

Justin, when you perform in Phoenix, remember to bring your papers.

The next round shows how tricky Arizona's game of pick out the immigrant is to play. Here are two basketball superstars. Neither one is Latino. That's confusing already. You have to dig deeper to figure out who isn't the real American. So let's consider their names--Jeremy Lin and Tony Parker. Clearly, ``Lin'' sounds kind of foreign while ``Tony Parker'' sounds American to me. But I'm not an Arizona police officer who would know that Jeremy Lin was born in Los Angeles, and Tony Parker--oops--Europe, Belgium. Wrong once again.

Finally, here's just one more.

In case the Supreme Court ever wants to meet in Phoenix to consider its ruling about Arizona's ``show me your papers'' law, if these two Justices step out to Starbucks, which one do you think is likeliest to be a suspect, the Anglo male or the Latina? Neither is an immigrant, but Antonin Scalia's father came through Ellis Island from Italy, and Sonia Sotomayor is a proud Puerto Rican with generations of U.S. citizen ancestors.

We could play this game all day, but the point is simple. The idea that any government official can determine who belongs in America and who doesn't simply by looking at them is completely ridiculous, unfair, and un-American, and yet this absurdity is the law of Arizona.

The Court signaled that it will be watching this law closely, and it should, because we count on the Court to protect our liberties, not restrict them.

Because, in America, people should always be judged by their actions. No person, not one, should be judged by the way they look, the sound of their voice, or the pronunciation of their last name--not in Arizona, not anywhere, not ever.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent yesterday for votes in the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 412, 413 and 415 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 414.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent yesterday for votes in the House Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 379 and 380.

Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 2012, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Votes 294, 295 and 296.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association in Chicago, Illinois and wish to congratulate them for their 50 years of committed community service. Their visionary leadership, strategic partnerships and compassionate dedication to our community has made a real and lasting difference in the lives of the residents of Logan Square and the Chicagoland area.

Since 1962, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association has dedicated the last five decades to building a healthy community by directly serving thousands of residents each year and impacting the lives of tens of thousands more with nationally-recognized programs in education, housing, immigration, health and the arts. The Logan Square neighborhood has benefitted greatly from the Association's commitment to change and community involvement.

Among the Logan Square Neighborhood Association's many accomplishments are Parent Mentoring programs that help students, teachers and families bridge cultural differences between immigrants' homes and the schools their children attend, creating a new approach to parent engagement in schools. By partnering with local schools, the Association established Community Learning Centers that allow elementary schools to provide convenient, evening continuing education and physical activities. The Association partnered with community organizations to banish slumlords, ending unethical practices and helping make affordable rental housing available to families. Their home ownership programs have helped more than 100 moderate-income families purchase their first home and led to the first homeownership program for teachers that was adopted by the Chicago Board of Education. The Logan Square Neighborhood Association has also developed programs focusing on living wage jobs which helped to create more than 1,400 permanent, living wage jobs in the Logan Square community.

Because of their commitment to change and to improving the Logan Square community, it makes me proud to have the Logan Square Neighborhood Association serve the residents of the 4th Congressional District. It is with great honor that I commend the Logan Square Neighborhood Association for their 50 years of effectively serving our community. I wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 196, 197 and 198.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 152 and 153.