Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ``such sums as may be necessary are hereby appropriated for livestock producers.''

Mr. Speaker, the so-called U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act contains this open-ended appropriation for pork, literally. The Troops Readiness bill contains another open-ended payment of taxpayer dollars for crop payments.

While the bill restricts funding for our troops, it would provide $25 million in a bailout for spinach farmers, another $74 in taxpayer dollars for peanut storage, and $283 million for milk producers. All of this spending is designated under the bill as emergency wartime supplemental appropriations, language that means that the bill waives the budget so we can pay pork producers. It is ironic that this bill treats pork producers better than our troops.

It is no wonder that the majority will not be allowed amendments to this bill, because the American people would not approve the payment of pork spending under the name of our troops overseas.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Ms. Gina Williams, an art teacher at Lake Forest Academy in Illinois. Ms. Williams is one of

ten Chicago-area high school teachers to be awarded a 2007 Golden Apple Award for Excellence in Teaching out of over 800 nominees from Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and Will counties.

As chair of the school's fine and performing arts department, Ms. Williams has developed programs aimed at stimulating her students and creating awareness of the world around them. She initially came to the school in 1998 as a visiting artist specializing in glass blowing. Today she continues to share her artistic skills as a sculptor while also teaching Advanced Placement Art History, AP Studio and 3-D design. In addition she has created a unique program that has used art to connect students with communities from inner-city Chicago to communities around the world.

Golden Apple's Chief Program Officer Gloria Harper describes Ms. Williams as ``an artist in the true sense. If you walk around the school, inside and outside, she's responsible for the art that brings it alive. She brings the kids out of the school and exposes them to everything, different ethnicities and cultures. She really makes them aware that they're part of a larger world.''

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Gina Williams and all the educators that work every day to ensure our children's minds are expanded.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which marks this family member and what has happened to him as a prisoner of conscience in Bangladesh.

When we see what happened to him after advocating the cause of religious reconciliation between Muslims and Jews, we see the condition of Salah Choudhury after a severe beating which he was subjected to.

This resolution urges the government of Bangladesh to drop all charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Mr. Choudhury now faces charges of sedition, treason and blasphemy. He faces these charges because of his belief in an interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims, and because of articles that he published critical of Islamic extremism. Under Bangladeshi law, sedition is a crime punishable by death.

Mr. Choudhury was detained in November 2003 at Zia International Airport in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on his way to board a flight for Tel Aviv simply to participate in the annual Hebrew Writers Conference. Mr. Choudhury's passport was seized, along with considerable sums of money and several personal items. On that same day, the police raided his home, his newspaper, and seized files, computers and other valuables.

Since Bangladeshi law currently prohibits travel to Israel, Choudhury was first cited for a minor passport violation, but he was subsequently charged with sedition and accused of espionage as an Israeli spy and incarcerated indefinitely. He was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and received no treatment for a debilitating case of glaucoma.

After being denied due process, Choudhury languished in jail for 17 months until one tireless human rights champion, and my constituent, Dr. Richard Benkin, began a personal odyssey to free Shoaib Choudhury. Dr. Benkin met Mr. Choudhury through a pro-Israel Internet Web site, and Dr. Benkin brought this situation to my attention and now before the House. All together, we sought for his freedom, and shortly thereafter, we did succeed in getting Choudhury's release from jail, finally reuniting him with his wife and two children.

Following Shoaib's release, a senior Bangladesh government official made numerous public pledges that all pending legal action against Mr. Choudhury would be dropped. Nevertheless, the government pressed forward with formal sedition charges.

Mr. Choudhury has won the recognition of international human rights and freedom of expression organizations for his courage. He was honored by PEN U.S.A.'s Freedom to Write Award and was presented with the American Jewish Committee's prestigious Moral Courage Award in absentia in Washington, D.C. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom intervened and wrote a letter to Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher calling on the U.S. Government to strengthen the voices of moderation in countries like Bangladesh where the rule of law, democratic institutions, and respect for human rights are under assault by violent extremists. The commission identified Mr. Choudhury as one of those voices.

But despite such international attention, the persecution of Choudhury has persisted. Mr. Choudhury's newspaper offices were bombed by Islamic extremists in July 2006, and he was attacked by a mob in his office on October 5, 2006, where this very picture was taken. A judge with alleged ties to Islamic extremist groups then ruled that Choudhury must stand trial for his life for sedition.

Bangladesh today is at a crossroads. Much-anticipated elections were postponed due to irregularities, and a state of emergency was declared. In a country with 150 million people packed into a land mass smaller than Iowa, 85 percent of whom are Muslim, it is critically important for Bangladesh to demonstrate its commitment to democratic institutions, to religious freedom, and to human rights. For his message of moderation and interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Jews, Mr. Choudhury is facing unjust criminal charges in an effort to silence him. The House of Representatives sends a clear message today that we will not allow an outspoken advocate for religious freedom to be quelled by intolerance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this resolution and would like to thank Chairman Lantos for his friendship and support in bringing this up and for his tireless advocacy on behalf of human rights of all as co-chairman of the Human Rights Caucus. I also want to thank Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her support on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I would like also to thank our ambassador to Bangladesh, Patricia Butenis, for her outstanding work at Embassy Dhaka. Her team has been vigorously monitoring this case, attending Mr. Choudhury's legal proceedings, and making strong public statements on his behalf.

I also want to thank Dr. Richard Benkin, sitting in the gallery today, for his unrelenting pursuit of justice on behalf of Shoaib Choudhury. I am proud to join Dr. Benkin in this endeavor and look forward to one day when we may even host Shoaib Choudhury in our very own Mount Prospect, Illinois.

Lastly, I want to thank the best congressional human rights staffer that I have ever had: Jeff Phillips had worked tirelessly on behalf of an African prisoner of conscience for months until he finally won his release. Now he has seized on Shoaib's case and made it a cause in the United States, in Canada, in Europe, and the subcontinent. He, we, have all been inspired by Shoaib and Dr. Benkin, and we hope by this resolution this case and a potential death sentence against Shoaib can be lifted. Shoaib is not a criminal, and he should not become a martyr. He is a model for interfaith tolerance and discussion between all of those of different faiths in the world.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chairman, I am here today because one of our most precious natural resources is under siege. As the world's largest freshwater system, the Great Lakes provide food, recreation, and drinking water for nearly 40 million people. Yet with each day, our water grows more contaminated with sewage discharged from municipalities along the lakes.

Nearly 24 billion gallons of sewage are dumped into the Great Lakes each year. While cities like Milwaukee have begun to reduce the amounts of sewage they discharge, not enough is being done to terminate this harmful practice. Detroit, for example, dumps 13.2 billion gallons of sewage per year into the lakes. This has a devastating effect on the region's tourism sector. Studies estimate an economic loss of roughly $8,000 per day as a result of closing a Lake Michigan beach due to pollution. In 2005, sewage discharges contributed to the nearly 3,000 Great Lakes' beach closures, an increase of 5 percent over the previous year. In my own district, there were 150 beach closures in just 92 days of summer in 2004. This is unacceptable.

For years, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund has helped to fund billions of dollars worth of water quality projects, but Federal funding for this program is declining. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Government Accountability Office estimated a $500 billion shortfall in clean water infrastructure investment over the next two decades. The important legislation in front of us would increase the authorization for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is imperative if we want to escape this massive shortfall. I had proposed an amendment establishing an added financing mechanism while also adding significant incentive for States and cities to eliminate their pollution into the Great Lakes.

The Kirk amendment would have set a date certain, 2027, to end sewage dumping directly into the Great Lakes by increasing fines for dumping to $100,000 per violation, per day. The next 20 years would allow municipalities to upgrade their sewage system and ensure a level playing field for all communities along the Great Lakes. This would not affect any current dumping restrictions or regulation. The amendment further would have established a Great Lakes clean-up fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, to which all sewage dumping penalties would be directed. Funds would be used to spur projects to improve wastewater discharges and protect the water quality of our lakes with a special focus on greener options such as habitat protection and wetland restoration.

This amendment would have also required both cities and the EPA to publicly report dumping levels of sewage a year after enactment. Currently there is no uniform standard for public disclosure of wastewater violations. It is imperative that we understand the extent of the problem we are facing, and that education begins with public disclosure of all dumping into the Great Lakes.

With the growing populations living along the American and Canadian shores of the Great Lakes, it is appropriate to set a date that gives cities the time to make needed changes to their infrastructure to prohibit sewage dumping in the Great Lakes. We must preserve Great Lakes beaches, maintain the region's economic growth and protect the nation's largest supply of drinking water.

Madam Chairman, I support this bill in its current form. It would have been a better bill had the congressional leadership allowed the Kirk amendment to be considered. I do not understand why the House Democratic Leadership opposes setting a deadline to ban sewage dumping in Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes. By blocking my amendment, the congressional leadership missed a key opportunity to protect our environment.

Mr. Speaker, as we take up the agenda of the new Congress in the 110th iteration, we should look to new issues which address the needs of the American people in this century, in this time.

When we look at what that new agenda should include, it should reflect the values and lifestyles and locations of Americans where they actually live today, and not the way that we think they lived 50 years ago.

When we look at the America of the 21st century, we see a country that has changed radically from an old vision of our Nation as one- third rural, one-third urban, and one-third suburban. If you hold that idea, you are about 40 years out of date. The new United States of the 21st century is a majority part suburban. In fact, in the last Presidential election, for the first time in our country's history, over half of all voters were living in suburban communities. When you ask these voters, ``What do you think the Congress should work on to make sure that it is addressing key needs of your family and your community,'' they overwhelmingly put forward a list of priorities that have been consistent for the last decade and that is: action on public education, on health care, on conservation, and on economic growth.

Responding to these needs, in the last Congress we formed the Suburban Agenda Caucus to then develop a political program here in the Congress to address those needs; and in this Special Order that we are going to have tonight, we are going talk about the next chapter, the suburban agenda for 2007. By talking about what these key pieces of legislation are, we have gone beyond platitudes or general policy descriptions to describe actual pieces of legislation that should be adopted in this Congress addressing the education, health care, conservation, and economic needs of the American people.

The suburban agenda is presented here in its new 2007 form. It includes the Gang Elimination Act of 2007, legislation by Congressman Dave Reichert that would seek to identify the top three major international drug gangs in the United States that represent a threat to our country's security. In fact, if you added up all of the documented gang members in the United States, it would amount to the fifth-largest army on the earth and one that represents a clear and present danger to the safety and security of many kids throughout America.

I will just say that in my own congressional district the average gangland shooter in North Chicago or Waukegan, Illinois, is in the eighth grade;

and this legislation is critical to provide Federal backup to suburban law enforcement to take on the new threat of gangs moving into the suburbs.

A second piece of the Suburban Agenda is the Teacher and Student Safety Act, legislation by Congressman Geoff Davis. This legislation seeks to make sure that every classroom in America is as safe as possibly can be maintained, using the judgment of full-time registered teachers who know their classrooms and their kids best.

Under this legislation, a full-time registered teacher would be allowed to search a book bag or a locker if they have any colorable suspicion that a weapon has come into the classroom.

In my own congressional district, in the Winnetka school system, and certainly we all remember the Columbine school attacks, we saw troubled kids bring weapons into the classroom with tragic results.

As a former teacher, I know that I knew my kids best; and, using that judgment, we can make sure that classrooms are safer in America.

One of the critical opportunities that we have in our country is improving health care, especially using new technology and expanding health insurance for Americans; and there we have the Health Insurance for Life Act by Representative Charlie Dent.

The Health Insurance for Life Act addresses a critical problem in America, which is that the average suburban family will have five different jobs over their life, and they may worry that in between jobs they would lose coverage or be dropped or develop a pre-existing condition which would interfere with the continuation of health care insurance for their family.

The Health Insurance for Life Act of 2007 simply says that for every American already in an insurance pool, who already enjoys COBRA health reinsurance rights for 18 months, that you can continue those, that insurance, for as long as you need to.

Almost every suburban family in America has a problem that they have heard about, either in their own family or in their neighborhood, regarding predators on-line, people that would be using, for example, the number one Web site on the planet, myspace.com, to reach out to kids and to attack them in a way that was simply alien or impossible in the previous century.

The Deleting On-Line Predators Act, which passed in last Congress by a vote of 400-15, says that our first line of defense are parents, moms and dads who know about this danger and are upgrading the protections of their kids on-line. For example, in the 21st century, how the computer should be really in the living room and not the bedroom, where parents can have routine and casual contact with their on-line habits of their kids; or that every 21st century parent should demand the rights of the passwords of their children to make sure that they know where their kids have been.

The Deleting On-Line Predators Act also says to schools and libraries that, as we upgrade protections for kids on-line in the home, that we also do them in public spaces to, consistently and across the board, deny opportunities to the estimated 50,000 sexual predators on-line who are on-line at any one time.

Congressman Jim Gerlach has also introduced another key piece of the Suburban Agenda. That is the Open Space and Farm Land Preservation Act to make sure that we improve the tax treatment and grant programs to preserve suburban open space, so that we do not enter a state of drift in which suburban open space disappears across the country, and we have an unending series of strip malls.

And the final piece of the Suburban Agenda for 2007 is the Senior Safety and Dignity Act by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite. That Act lays out a set of protections for seniors as America ages to make sure that their health care standards, especially in senior and life-long care, are maintained.

When we look at this all, there is one bill that stands above all others in the concern of suburban families, and that is how to pay for college to make sure that a child has a guaranteed road map into the middle class. And to talk about that legislation, let me yield to the author of that bill, my colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Judy Biggert.

If the gentlelady will yield.

When we look at this problem, we see that the Congress has taken critical action in the past to change our culture in favor of more savings and investment. The 401(k) program was relatively new to our society and our culture.

And yet millions of Americans now, when they get their first real job, establish a 401(k) program, saving on their own for retirement.

Last Congress you were leading the effort on behalf of extending 529 college

savings accounts that are chartered under each State. We already have $80 billion saved under investment. That is why I want to applaud you with the potential that this 401 Kids account bill could do.

I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that may be the biggest benefit from this legislation. Not only will we save tens of billions of dollars for college education, and I think everybody in this Chamber knows George Washington University just crossed the $50,000 a year tuition mark for kids, but more importantly, these accounts are going to have the names of each child on them. And so it is an education tool for parents. And I don't know if you want to talk about that. When the statement comes into the home that for a young teenage son or daughter, you might be able to talk about how the investment has gone.

I thank the gentlewoman. I think the Congress needs to pass the 401 Kids Family Savings Account Act. We know that the average college graduate in America earns a million dollars more than someone who only graduated from high school.

One of the other members of the Suburban Agenda Caucus and an author of one of the key pieces of legislation is my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Charlie Dent, and I yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have seen that several hundred thousand Americans each year exercise their COBRA rights to continue health care insurance for their families after they are laid off or leave employment. But, each year, over 200,000 Americans will reach the end of their 18-month COBRA period and then be unable to continue their health care insurance. If they have a preexisting condition in their family, they could then be left out of a coverage pool later.

I think that is why it is so important that, at the discretion of the family, at their own cost, they can continue that health care insurance to have peace of mind.

I yield to the gentleman.

We also hear from job experts that in America generally it takes one month or $10,000 to find a new job, on average, but many families will hit that 18-month limit before they find new employment.

I thank the gentleman.

For suburban families, health care issues are second only to safety and security and improvement of public education in their priority list. One of the key issues is access to care, especially at community health centers, and making sure we have enough doctors. No one knows this issue better than the author of the Family Health Care Accessibility Act, part of the Suburban Agenda, my colleague, Congressman Tim Murphy.

Reclaiming my time, I applaud the gentleman. I am a co- sponsor of the Family Health Care Accessibility Act. It is part of the Suburban Agenda, so many Members are backing it.

But my understanding on this legislation is that several trial lawyer associations are against this legislation because they want to preserve the right to be able to sue any doctor volunteering in a community health center out of that ability, which then would mean that there is no doctor present or the community health center closes down.

You are an expert on health care in this Congress. When we look at the delivery of health care, in a hospital emergency room, we have the most expensive setting to care for a family. Generally they have waited until a very late moment, and now we are in an acute emergency situation.

Had that family gone to a community health center early in the process, we would have dealt with the problem without the drama and without a potential catastrophic result, and at much lower cost to the public and the family. That is why this legislation is essential, because it expands these centers and expands care at this level instead of the very expensive place we do it now, in the hospital emergency room.

If we don't pass this legislation, we will have fewer doctors and fewer examining rooms open in community health centers.

Ironically, because we did not provide this liability protection for community health centers, we don't have any issue of malpractice because there was no practice of medicine whatsoever in that setting which I think defies common sense. A greater access to care and expanded capabilities for community health centers ought to be what this Congress is about.

I thank the gentleman.

When we look at the suburban agenda, you can see, last year, we had quite a lot of progress made.

The School Safety Acquiring Excellence Act not only passed this House as part of the suburban agenda, but it was enacted into law, allowing full national criminal background checks for anyone coming in contact with kids in a school, especially recognizing the Jessica Lunsford problem.

We also passed the Charitable Donations for Open Space Act, enacted into law, and that was with the leadership of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Jim Gerlach, who is now, as part of this year's suburban agenda, is moving the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Act, and I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

We look back on the tradition of great environmentalists, like Theodore Roosevelt, who started the National Park Service and expanded key habitats like Yellowstone National Park, and we are all for strengthening and expanding the park system out west.

But for my constituents outside the Chicago suburbs, or yours in the Philadelphia suburbs, that might be only part of a summer vacation.

We need to pass this legislation so there is green and open space near home so we don't have an unending set of suburban sprawl, but we don't have the Federal Government take over this role; this is a decision made by landowners and communities throughout our local areas making local decisions. But in some, create more green and open space, new greenways, to preserve a quality of life and an ecological ambience that has become part of suburban living.

Why I think this legislation is so important, too, is we have seen in the development of the environmental law and movement a trend away from our roots protecting green and open space and habitat to more regulation, more lawsuits and potentially ineffective policies.

I will just note, the Federal Superfund program, designated to cleaning up the most toxic places in America, has spent over half its funds on litigation and lawsuit costs, not on environmental cleanup.

Your legislation takes us back to the original core of what the environmental movement was first founded to do, which was to protect green and open space and key habitats for all time.

It also seems to me we are not empowering a large bureaucracy. There is no overhead in administration. The vast percentage of resources dedicated for this purpose actually goes to the environmental preservation.

I thank the gentleman for being a leading part of our Suburban Agenda Caucus and moving this critical environmental piece of legislation.

To recap, last year when we put this together, we passed legislation, enacted it, for safer schools, charitable space, for open space. We led the way in at least the House passing legislation promoting fully electronic medical records by passing the Deleting On-Line Predators Act, setting the example on student and teacher safety.

This suburban trend in America is not an Eastern trend, and it is not a Midwestern trend. It is not a Western. It is throughout the country. One of our suburban leaders is from Texas, my colleague from the Texas delegation, Pete Sessions, and a leader on suburban issues.

You are telling me that the marriage penalty will be reimposed by the American Tax Code unless this Congress acts?

What we did is we made sure married couples did not pay a higher tax than two single people living together.

If we look at the suburban agenda about safe schools, extending health care, green and open space, et cetera, one of the things that is not part of the Suburban Agenda is a tax increase, especially a tax increase on working families.

One of the things that we have instituted as part of our general tax policy is to make sure that married families are not paying a higher tax, because a key part of the Suburban Agenda is a family together, raising kids under one household.

I am worried, though, that if there is inaction on tax policy by this Congress, many of the inequities in the Tax Code get reimposed and we start taxing families at a higher rate than people who are single.

We talk about the Suburban Agenda, what is in it, which is pro-school, pro-health care, pro-environment legislation, and what is not, which is a tax increase on the American people. There is the argument that is made very often here in Washington that the only way to cure our financial woes is a tax increase. But if I remember, looking back at the record of the 1970s, even when Congress did raise taxes, for every dollar in taxes that it raised against the American people, it spent another $1.08 in new spending. So the record of those years was that, even though we were raising taxes, spending here in the Congress went up even faster, and so our deficit woes became worse.

If I am not mistaken, last year was the largest increase in tax receipts coming into our Treasury, even though there was no tax increase by the Federal Government, simply because of economic growth, that since September 11, 2001, we have added over 2 million jobs. Maybe that is one of the key lessons of the Suburban Agenda: There is no Federal program or no social welfare act that is more powerful in improving the life of a suburban family than a job and a growing economy for small business.

As the gentleman points out, many people here in Washington will point to the European Union as the economic model, an example that we should follow, but the record is relentlessly negative towards their example of creating new jobs or economic growth, where we have seen a reactive decline of the European Union as against China and the United States. We also recall in the last decade how we all thought that we would all end up working for the Japanese and that Japan, Incorporated, was the big threat.

Now we see an old axiom of politics said by one great politician, never bet against the United States, and also never bet against freedom. What we have seen here is an unbelievable economic performance by our country, record tax receipts coming into the Treasury without a tax increase, and the ability then to focus on the future of the United States, which is largely being written in the suburbs, with safe schools, extending health care and making sure that we are planning for the long term in what will be aging America, with the baby boomers entering retirement, but hopefully, with these policies entering retirement with some safety and security based on private savings and investment, encourage through first the 401(k) program and then we hope through the 401 Kids Family Tax Savings Accounts.

I thank my colleague. I will close out by simply saying that we now present to the American people and the Congress the suburban agenda for 2007, Action Against International Drug Gangs, moving into the suburbs where the Federal Government can help; Safe Schools, relying on the judgment of teachers, full time, using all of their abilities; 401 Kids Tax Deferred Savings Accounts, to make sure that families have more resources, more flexibility, to save for their child's college education and first time home purchase. Health Insurance for Life, to make sure that we continue the COBRA insurance for Americans, for more than 18 months, the Deleting Online Predators Act to make sure we are empowering parents to control this 21st Century danger to their children; the Open Space and Farm Land Preservation Act to make sure that we have more preserved green and open space in the green and open suburbs, and finally, the Senior Safety and Dignity Act to make sure that as the baby boomers age, we are preserving our long- term health care for our Americans.

This is the suburban agenda, a vision for the future and a work plan for the Congress. We are looking forward to working with both sides of the aisle on this to make sure that we are representing and advancing the needs of America as it actually is, living in the suburbs and needing action on all of these items to realize the full potential of this Congress and the work ahead.

Madame Speaker, on February 12, I joined my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Hare, in introducing H.R. 995 to extend the authorization of the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial through 2015. This legislation will give the American Veterans Disabled for Life Foundation more time to raise the money needed to build this memorial just south of the Rayburn Building. I believe the time has come to recognize the sacrifices made by America's more than three million disabled veterans by building a memorial for them in here in Washington, D.C.

Last December President Bush signed into law a bill to transferring control of the land for the memorial from the District of Columbia to the National Park Service. Now the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial Foundation needs to raise approximately $65 million to cover the cost of construction. By passing H.R. 995 today, we will give the foundation time to raise this money.

Earlier this year I joined my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Moore, in introducing legislation to authorize the minting of commemorative coins to help raise money for this cause. As we extend the authorization for the memorial today, I want to encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring H.R. 634 to issue these coins. No federal funds will be used to build the disabled veterans memorial, but it is appropriate for Congress to do all it can to support and encourage its construction.

With more than three million disabled veterans in the United States today, it is fitting that a memorial to their sacrifice be erected in Washington, D.C. It is my hope that passing Mr. Hare's legislation will bring us closer to making the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial a reality.

Madam Speaker, today, the House will take up legislation that will remove the right of Americans to a secret ballot in their union elections. When asked, only 6 percent of Americans supported eliminating a secret ballot, while 89 percent supported keeping their rights.

Eighty-four percent of Americans said that they did not want their choices to be made public. And when asked about this legislation, only 14 percent of Americans said they supported it; 79 percent opposed.

Madam Speaker, we cannot advance the interests of Americans by taking away their right to a secret ballot. Since 2000, Congress has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to improve voting in America. We even support secret ballot elections in places like Poland and Afghanistan, where secret ballots are banned.

Madam Speaker, we know that the union movement has lost over 3,000 dues-paying members alone. But just because only 12 percent of Americans now choose to pay into a union is no reason to attack our rights as Americans to a secret ballot.

Madam Chairman, this bill stands for the principle that: Americans should not have a right to a secret ballot, but 89 percent of Americans want their Member of Congress to defend a secret ballot; Americans do not want their votes made public, but this bill stands for the principle that your vote will be made public, despite the fact that 89 percent of Americans want their votes to remain private. In sum, this bill lacks support from 79 percent of Americans who oppose its provisions.

Madam Chairman, the Fraternal Order of Police opposes this bill. The American Hospital Association opposes this bill. Thirty other major organizations oppose it because it is ironic that as we insist on free elections with secret ballots for Afghans, we remove that right for Americans.

I am sorry that over 300,000 Americans dropped their union memberships last year, but this Congress cannot rescue big labor from its own loss of popularity.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Kidney Disease Education Benefits Act. As co-Chairman of the Congressional Kidney Caucus, I am proud to join with my fellow Kidney Caucus co-Chairman, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) to introduce this important initiative.

Each year, some 80,000 people are diagnosed with End-Stage Renal Disease. This stage of kidney disease occurs when the kidneys function at less than 10 percent and, as a result, are no longer able to maintain life. Patients with kidney disease require regular kidney dialysis treatments or a transplant to survive. Medicare pays for most renal patients at the cost of $20 billion a year, nearly 7 percent of all Medicare expenditures, despite the fact that the kidney disease population represents just 1.1 percent of all Medicare patients.

Complications associated with kidney disease are common, but can be reduced if appropriate education is provided prior to the onset of renal failure. There are a number of steps chronic kidney disease patients can take to reduce renal failure and better prepare themselves for dialysis, including making lifestyle changes, learning about renal replacement options, and seeking a compatible kidney donor. Medicare, however, does not provide coverage for education on nutrition, treatment options, venous access, or transplant coordination until after the patient has experienced kidney failure and is already undergoing dialysis.

To remedy this situation, we are introducing the Kidney Disease Education Benefits Act of 2007 to make counseling available to patients before they begin dialysis. This is a top National Kidney Foundation legislative priority. Our bill would provide reimbursement for an estimated $10 million per year for up to six educational sessions for Medicare patients. These sessions would be offered 1 year prior to kidney failure to help prevent renal failure, better prepare these patients for dialysis, and save Medicare costs that can be associated with complications resulting from renal failure.

Kidney disease cannot be reversed, but, with appropriate education, its effects can be slowed, improving the quality of life for renal patients and reducing costs to taxpayers. I would like to thank Congressman McDermott for joining me in the fight against kidney disease. I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues on this important initiative.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007, H.R. 1120. This legislation is a critical step to empower parents to exercise more control over what their children do on the Internet and to protect them from Internet predators.

In Lake County, IL, we have seen what can happen when Internet predators are able to make contact with children. In October 2005, Joseph Caprigno molested a 14 year-old boy he met on the Internet. Caprigno, a 40 year-old man, arranged to meet the boy in a 7-11 parking lot in an Internet chat room. In January a 20 year-old man, Michael Zbonski, molested a 16 year-old girl he met on MySpace.com. Frighteningly, not only did he communicate with this girl for 2 years on the Internet, he admitted to having a sexual relationship with one of the victim's underage friends.

The Deleting Online Predators Act is a commonsense piece of legislation designed to empower parents to play a more active role in their children's activities online. The bill calls on the Federal Trade Commission to issue consumer alerts and establish a unique Web site to better educate parents as to the dangers posed by Internet predators. Parents are the first and most important line of defense against these predators, and it is imperative to arm them with timely and accurate information to protect their children.

This bill also requires schools to prevent children from accessing social networking Web sites and chat rooms unless they are doing so for a legitimate educational purpose and are under adult supervision. It also requires public libraries to prevent children from accessing these Web sites unless they have the permission of a parent. I believe this is an entirely appropriate action to help parents determine what their children can and cannot do online. It seems foolish for the taxpayer to subsidize what amounts to a loophole by which children can circumvent their parent's wishes and unwittingly expose themselves to Internet predators.

Madam Speaker, Lake County also offers one more case that plainly demonstrates the need for this legislation. The Lake County State's Attorney recently filed Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse charges against two teachers who are accused of soliciting and arranging to molest underage students at the school where they taught. Jason Glick and James Lobitz didn't just molest two underage students, they arranged to do so using school-owned computer equipment and resources during school hours.

The cases against Jason Glick and James Lobitz are still pending, but by passing this bill, we can send a message to parents that just as we wouldn't allow sexual predators to roam the halls of a school, we will not allow them to infiltrate our schools over the Internet.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Our uniformed men and women have given great service to the Nation by ending a tyrant's rein and fostering elections in a region that only knew dictatorship. In my judgment now, the time for decisive military action led by American and British forces is ending and the Iraqi stage should be delivered to new political leaders to work out their own differences. I will support the House resolution that recommends against the troop surge because the United States should increase the responsibilities of the elected Iraqi government to solve its own problems while reducing the number of American combat troops sent overseas.

I did not come to this conclusion lightly. The long-term security of our country depends on the United States not being defeated in the Middle East. To prevent the collapse of democracy, tolerance and supporters in our region, we need a policy that relies on America's key strengths and builds additional support among our citizens and allies.

Looking back on the last years, our troops in Iraq achieved two major objectives: First, they ended the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, a leader that

invaded two separate United Nations member countries and ordered the murder of several hundred thousand Iraqis. Second, they backed the United Nations' sponsorship of Iraq's three national elections that approved a new constitution and government.

Iraq is no longer a military threat to her neighbors or minorities, especially her Kurdish families, who no longer fear that a third genocide campaign will be launched by their very own government. These are major achievements, worthy of the bravery and sacrifice of Americans in uniform.

But Iraq now faces new challenges that should be solved by Iraqis, not the U.S. military. Iraq's government, led by a Kurdish president and a Shia prime minister, faces a daunting enemy composed of people that would restore the old dictatorship, or worse. But this struggle is primarily political, not military. Foreign troops, be they American or British or otherwise, are not well-suited to advance the elected government's writ.

In the coming months we should build a longer term plan for the United States and our allies in the Middle East. Man for man, Iraqi combat troops operating under the authority of their own elected government are better suited for this mission than Americans on the front lines of Iraq.

The U.S. military can offer unique advantages to the Iraqi government in our ability to provide the Iraqi army and police with logistics, communications, training and intelligence, in a way that only Americans can provide. Over the coming months, Americans should be focused on these missions, making sure that our Iraqi allies are more effective in extending the authority of their government. By winding down the combat duties of Americans, we will dramatically lower the risk to our men and women stationed overseas while providing a decisive advantage to the elected government of Iraq. This is how to win the battle and secure a lasting government for the Iraqi people.

Our plan should be strengthened by a diplomatic initiative among Iraq's neighbors and the World Bank to support the elected government in its plans for reconstruction. To date, the World Bank has been ``absent without leave'' in delivering help to this founding member of the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development.

Our efforts, based on the key American advantages, while reducing the number of American combat troops, will improve the prospects for peace and build support for our goals here and among our allies.

Mr. Speaker, I join with many Members today to say if it were up to us, we would recommend a different course of action that involves less risk to Americans. As a military man, I am fully aware that the Constitution does not place 535 Members of Congress in the direct military chain of command, and Americans who wear the uniform are also not shy in debating various courses of action. They have as many opinions on various issues as any civilian community, and that is their birthright as Americans. But as volunteers who wear the uniform, they take on an additional heavy obligation to make a decision, to bring an end to the debate, and to confront the enemies of the United States as brothers and sisters united by a common bond.

In coming days, our troops will face danger, not as Democrats, Independents or Republicans, but as Americans.

We in Congress should draw on their strength once our decision is made. When a course of action is set, we are not neutral in the contest. If Americans are engaged in combat, we are for the Americans winning. We will give them the tools to bring an end to the conflict as rapidly as possible. The debate in Congress will soon close and the course will be set. For those Americans who serve farthest from home, they should know that after a vigorous debate, their democracy will make a decision, and we will back those charged with its implementation with everything needed to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, the security at O'Hare Airport is not what it should be. Reports over the weekend showed 3,700 security badges have not been returned from former employees no longer allowed to work at the airfield. Many of the badges had not been canceled and would permit anyone access to an aircraft.

According to CBS TV, several of the employees involved had previous arrest records and convictions for nonmajor crimes. Reports also indicated that several doors at O'Hare did not even have ID scanners, allowing anyone who appeared to be official to enter the airfield.

The Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Agency and Federal law enforcement officers that I have met with have all promised action. While they can levy fines on the contractors involved, the penalties should be increased.

Later this month, I will introduce legislation levying a fine of $10,000 per day for an airport security badge that is not canceled for an employee that was fired. That should get their attention and help make the world's busiest airport more secure.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, one of the key principles of leadership is to lead by example, and the leader of this House, Speaker Pelosi, has moved us to restrict access to executive jets, as she should have. She has also moved to institute new spending controls for the Congress and for the government, as she should have. And she has moved to reduce our impact on the environment, especially man's effect on climate change, as she should.

I agree with each of these priorities. But the Speaker's staff request to upgrade her military domestic taxi service from a small plane that was offered to Speaker Hastert for 12 passengers and a crew of five, to a major airliner with 45 passengers and a crew of 16 appears to be extravagant, appears to expand the Congress's excess to executive jets, appears to remove any spending controls from our operations, and dramatically increases our impact on the environment, especially climate change.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a major airliner costing over $10,000 an hour to fly is an extravagance that is beyond the Speaker's status as third in line to succeed the President under our plan in the Constitution and in procedure for the continuity of government.

In fact, the Department of Defense has ruled that since the Speaker has never become the President of the United States in the 220 years of our country's history, that the continuity of government plan does not include providing 24/7 military taxi service within the domestic United States, carrying family, other Members of Congress, staff, and supporters to both political and official events.

Now, we know that jetliners emit a large amount of greenhouse gases, and we know that this aircraft costs millions of dollars, and we know that the Congress has dramatically restricted the access of executive jets to everyone else, but the Speaker.

I might inject a point of common sense here that the Speaker's staff has said that, for security reasons, she must have unlimited access to an aircraft at the 89th Military Airlift Wing like this one.

And I may point out that in my experience of watching public officials move through airports, a figure like Senator Obama or Senator McCain attracts a much larger crowd than one for the Speaker. I might think that if we have to offer a military taxi service to the Speaker, we would also have to offer one to the fourth in line for the Presidency, the President pro tempore of the Senate.

How much will this cost? How much in greenhouse gases will it emit? And last and not least, what sort of example does it send as a leader who is advocating all of these other policies that, in the operation of her own staff and her own offices, she is not following those principles?

For that reason, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced a bill to require all vessels, including those with no ballast water on board, NOBOBs, to undergo ballast water exchange before entering the Great Lakes.

Invasive species pose a dangerous threat to the Great Lakes. These creatures can cause irreparable ecological and economic damage to a variety of locations and industries. In 2005, economic losses were estimated at an annual $5 billion to the region. More than 160 non- native species have already invaded the Great Lakes ecosystem. As the largest source of our Nation's fresh water, the Great Lakes must be protected from further introduction of invasives.

One method by which these species enter the Great Lakes is through ballast water tanks. Current law requires ships carrying ballast water to undergo ballast water exchange to flush out invasive species before entering the Great Lakes from another port. However, 90 percent of all ships entering the Great Lakes have no ballast water on board. These NOBOBs are not subject to the same ballast water exchange laws, even though they still have ballast tanks. Invasive species often survive in the sediment at the bottom of these tanks. When these ships operate in the Great Lakes, they may add and then pump out new ballast water before leaving. This mixes with residual ballast water and sediments, and provides an unregulated pathway for the introduction of new invasive species when the ballast water is released.

In other words, the contamination begins.

We must not leave 90 percent of ships entering the Great Lakes untreated. This bipartisan legislation requires all ships with ballast tanks, including NOBOBs, to undergo ballast water exchange. In addition, the bill commissions a study of the effectiveness and environmental soundness of other ballast treatment options. The language fixes a current problem and works towards an even stronger solution for the future.

Madam Speaker, this legislation, while small, has enormous consequences for the health and safety of one of our national treasures. I am proud to introduce this ballast water legislation to significantly reduce the infiltration of invasive species into the Great Lakes.

Madam Speaker, LTG Warren D. Johnson of Winnetka passed away on January 23, 2007, leaving behind a legacy of personal contributions to his family, colleagues, and the nation.

General Johnson was born in 1922, in Blackwell, Oklahoma. He entered military service in April 1942 and graduated from officer candidate school with a commission as second lieutenant in November 1942. He was first assigned to advanced training for the B-17 and then sent to Tokyo, Japan where he served from December 1946 until June 1949 as a personnel officer in the Pacific Air Command and the Far East Air Forces.

Johnson was next assigned as a B-36 crew member with the 11th Bombardment Wing of Carswell Air Force Base, Texas. There he began his long association with Strategic Air Command. At Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas from May 1955 to July 1959 he served as a B-47 aircraft commander and director of operations for the 70th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing.

General Johnson was assigned as chief of transportation at Torrejon Air Base, Spain and in January 1962, became commander of the SAC base at Sidi Slimane, Morocco.

In 1963, he became deputy director of Eighth Air Force Headquarters at Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetts. In 1966, Johnson became commander of the 380th Strategic

Aerospace Wing, SAC and in 1967 was given the responsibility for SAC wings.

In September 1969, he assumed the dual assignment of commander, U.S. Forces, Azores, and commander, 1605th Air Base Wing, Lajes Field, Azores.

In June 1971, General Johnson became deputy chief of staff for personnel at Strategic Air Command Headquarters and later became chief of staff.

He joined the Defense Nuclear Agency in May 1973 as deputy director for operations and administration, and in October 1973 was appointed as the director. General Johnson also served as a member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

General Johnson received numerous military decorations and awards. He was quadruplerated as pilot, navigator, bombardier and radar operator, and had more than 17,000 hours of flying time in fighters and bombers.

Retiring from the United States Air Force in 1977, Don Johnson joined Baxter International as a corporate officer. His activities were varied ranging from facility planning, telecommunications, and aviation to Baxter's operations in South Africa, finally recommending divestment of the company's interest in that country. General Johnson chaired Baxter's Crisis Management Team before retiring in 1990.

On a personal note, it was to my great pleasure and honor that ``The General,'' as we called him, served on my Service Academy Select Screening Board to make recommendations for nominations for the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. He took delight in the many fine young people that our district produced and their sincere desire to serve our country.

General Johnson was a giant among men, having served in three wars, flying fighters and bombers, going from prop planes to the Strategic Air Command, and serving as Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency. He continued making contributions in civilian life by sharing his leadership and understanding of the world. We will never comprehend the influence and inspiration that General Johnson provided to those who had the opportunity to make his acquaintance. To his wife Judy and his four surviving children, I extend my deep condolences. To General Don Johnson's many friends at the North Shore Senior Center, it was our pleasure to know such a fine individual and family man who will be missed by all.