Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, as a freshman, I find myself at somewhat of a disadvantage in terms of listening to people speak from both sides of the aisle talking about the history of this institution and the way that things have been done over the past several Congresses and over the past several years. And I find that to be somewhat of a disadvantage.

But I also find it to be somewhat of an advantage. And I find it to be an advantage in that you get an ability to look at things from a different perspective, from a new perspective, from a perspective not jaded by how things were done in the past, but looking at it on how things should be done.

And one of the things that I can't help but notice as a former district attorney, when I used to try cases and I would listen to opening statements, you can always get a sense of how good your own case was by listening to the opening statement of the other side. And when they talked about everything, when they talked about the facts, you knew they had a good case. But when they talked about everything but the facts, you knew they didn't have much of a case.

That's what we hear happening tonight. We're not hearing anything about this bill. We're not hearing discussion of the facts. We're hearing everything but what this bill is about.

Earlier this week we had, in Rules Committee, a very good debate on this bill. And one of the points that was brought up on this bill was an issue that I think was very important, and that was the requirement that this bill would have to require ICE to reach out to local institutions, whether it were State, local or Federal, where people were being held that could be deported, and that would be on a monthly basis, to make a determination whether or not those people should be deported.

And Ranking Member Rogers raised a very good issue during that debate, and he and I had some discussion on it. And he said, well, I believe that what we should be doing is spending more of our priority on the people who are not incarcerated, and I think this bill spends too much time worrying about the people who are incarcerated. My response to which was, as a former DA, the last thing we want to do is let somebody who is right under our nose get away from us. We need to stay focused on the people that are incarcerated. They are right there. They are under our nose, and we need to stay focused on it.

That's what this bill does. But the point, the real important point of that debate was, it was a substantive debate. It was a debate based on the issues. It was a debate based upon the content of the bill itself, not about everything else, not about what happened in the past, not about how things were done or what is going on. It was based upon the substance of the bill. And I think that's what this debate should be focused on.

I think it is a good bill. I think this debate is a good debate when it stays focused on the substance of the bill. And that's what I believe, as a former DA, this bill is a good bill because it deals with important issues that make our communities safer places.

I thank my colleague and good friend, the gentlelady from California, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

I have listened to stories from around my upstate New York district from families affected by life-threatening and debilitating illnesses: children with childhood diabetes, men and women with spinal cord injuries, lupus, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Every day, these brave Americans fight the odds with the hope that stem cell research will one day give them a new lease on life.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will ensure that our Nation's scientists are able to work towards making that hope a reality. Most importantly, this bill creates an ethical framework, stronger than the President's current policy, which must be followed in conducting this lifesaving research. The bill only authorizes the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics and requires written, informed consent from the donating women.

My constituents support this ethically responsible lifesaving research, and I stand with them today to give hope to millions of people around the country.

Opponents say they believe life is sacred, and I agree. It is. So let us leave no stone unturned to give as many people the opportunity, the chance to live, people with lupus, with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's, with diabetes. Let us pass this stem cell bill.

The message from the American people is clear. It is time for this administration to do the right thing and sign this critically important law.

My colleague talks about bumper sticker policies and pandering to liberal blogs. This is not about pandering to liberal blogs. This is about listening to the American people. It is time this administration listens to the American people and signs a stem cell research bill.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate purposes only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 465.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 465 provides for consideration of H.R. 65, the Lumbee Recognition Act. For over 100 years, the Lumbees have been in Federal recognition limbo. This legislation, which maintains the strong bipartisan support of 215 Members, aims to bring closure to the issue of full Federal recognition for Lumbee Indians of North Carolina, which has lingered in question for far too long.

There's absolutely no question that the Lumbee Indians constitute an Indian tribe. The Lumbee were first recognized as a tribe in 1885 by their home State of North Carolina. After initially seeking Federal recognition in 1888, the Congress acknowledged the Lumbee Indians as an Indian tribe via the Lumbee Act of 1956 but denied them any benefits and privileges of such status. This rare form of recognition is nothing more than an unjust half measure that must be corrected by Congress.

Those opposed to the underlying bill will argue that it is the duty of the Department of the Interior to recognize the status of an Indian tribe. However, because of the action taken by Congress in 1956, creating half-measure recognition, the Department of the Interior has ruled that the Lumbee tribe is not eligible for the tribal recognition process which it administers. That's a very important point that should command the attention of every Member of this body. Simply put, the Department of the Interior is saying to Congress, your legislation in 1956 created this recognition problem and now you are the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to rectify it, that is, Congress.

The recognition of an Indian tribe by the United States has always ultimately been the responsibility of Congress. Even though the Department of the Interior established an administrative process for recognition of the tribes in 1978, Congress has since recognized nine tribes by special legislation where there were special circumstances. Further, because Congress tasks the administration with the authority to establish an administration recognition process in no way means that Congress completely abdicates its authority over such matters.

Madam Speaker, numerous bills have been introduced regarding Federal recognition of the Lumbee starting way back in 1899. And during that time, numerous hearings were held and reports were filed. Most recently, the Natural Resources Committee held a hearing in April of this year where the underlying bill was debated and amendments were offered. Further, the Department of the Interior has researched and studied the Lumbee history 11 times.

Madam Speaker, we owe it to the Lumbee Indians and the State of North Carolina to write the final chapter and close the book on the issue of full Federal recognition.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, may want this to be about earmark reform, and he may want this to be about other things, but, frankly, this is a rule about the Lumbee Indians.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) who can talk to us about the rule on the Lumbee Indians.

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague from North Carolina, I would have to say that

while it is the role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to certainly deal with Indian tribes, we have delegated that responsibility to them as Congress, to that agency. We have not abdicated our responsibility. That is our responsibility as Congress. We should not give over our responsibility in any particular area completely to an agency. We have delegated that responsibility to them, and I think it is the responsibility and the duty of people in Congress to bring forth recognition in cases such as this.

With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) to respond.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Madam Speaker, for over 100 years the Lumbee Indians have been recognized by their home State of North Carolina.

The Department of the Interior has researched the Lumbee history on 11 separate occasions. Numerous bills have been introduced, many congressional hearings have been held, and the Department of the Interior has stated that the Lumbee are not eligible for the Department's recognition process because of Congress' action in 1956.

The gentleman from Connecticut has asked the question, what are we trying to hide? That's insulting. There is nothing that anyone is trying to hide. What we are trying to do is recognize a long-overdue injustice and recognize the Lumbee Tribe. That is what this bill is about, that is what all the hard work from the gentleman from North Carolina is about, is to rectify a long-overdue injustice.

Clearly, the time for half-measures is over. We have a responsibility to address the issue and write the final chapter of the unfortunate Lumbee Indian Federal recognition saga, which has gone on far too long.

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 465 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.''.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 429.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 429 provides for consideration of H.R. 1100, the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule also allows for consideration of all three amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee on

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by saying that it's important to note on this bill that all this bill really does is to create an environment for people to donate the land or for funds to be donated to actually purchase the land, and we're not talking about a vast tract of land. We're talking about a very small amount of land, 115 acres, 22 acres of which have already been pledged, and basically are waiting for this legislation to be passed so that the conservatory could be created so that the acreage can be donated to it.

So I would say in response to my good friend and colleague from Washington that this is not any type of huge land grab. This is really just a very small amount of acreage that is being set up and being donated just to enhance the whole, again, experience of the Carl Sandburg site.

So I think it is a very good bill. It is a good rule, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I'm a bit confused because the gentleman from Texas is opposing the rule, the rule which is allowing the amendment that he is speaking of. So the Rules Committee has put the amendment in, the Bishop amendment, that he's talking about. It will entitle a full and fair debate on it this afternoon, and we are giving the gentleman everything that he has asked for. And he stands up here and talks about some type of hypocrisy, and frankly, I just don't understand why he is mentioning that, why he is talking about that when, in fact, we are giving the rule that allows for debate on that particular amendment.

So we are, in fact, giving the gentleman exactly what he is asking for, and he is opposing the rule. So I guess I just don't understand what his point is, but I would say that we are supporting the rule that, in fact, does allow for full and fair debate on this particular amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1100 will further preserve the legacy and communicate the stories of internationally recognized author, Pulitzer Prize winner and great American historian, Carl Sandburg.

Again, I congratulate my good friend and freshman class colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) for his efforts to bring this thoughtful legislation to the floor.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule so that future generations can also enjoy the beauty and splendor of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the extraordinary musical career of Al Gallodoro of Oneonta, New York, and take part in the celebration of his 94th birthday on June 23, 2007. A master of the saxophone and clarinet, Mr. Gallodoro has impressed audiences all over the world for decades.

Mr. Gallodoro began playing the clarinet at the age of 7 and entered the music business at the young age of 13. He spent the next 40 years of his career performing with a well-known jazz musician, Paul Whiteman, playing alto saxophone, clarinet, and bass clarinet. Mr. Gallodoro was also a soloist for live broadcasts, performing more on- air solos during his career than any other performer.

Mr. Gallodoro has traveled all over the world to perform, and holds the world's record for performing the Rhapsody in Blue, playing the piece over 10,000 times throughout the 1930s

and 1940s. Additionally, in 2005, Mr. Gallodoro received an Honorary Doctoral Degree from Hartwick College, which recognized a lifetime of extraordinary achievement in music performance and teaching.

After moving to Oneonta in 1981, he has become an active entertainer in our community. Mr. Gallodoro performs each month at Oneonta's very own live music venue, the Sego Cafe. He is notably one of only thirteen artists who began recording before 1940 that is actively recording today.

Mr. Gallodoro has undoubtedly made an unforgettable impact on the music community and will always be remembered for his invaluable contributions to the field of music. I do not doubt that his 94th birthday celebration at the Sego Cafe in Oneonta will be one to remember.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride today that I celebrate the incredible accomplishments of Mr. Gallodoro and wish him a wonderful 94th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my colleague from California saying that we can't win the war on 2-month funding intervals. I would submit we have now been at this Iraq war longer than it took us to win World War II when we were fighting both Japan and Germany, and still we are no closer, and, I would submit, further from what they define as ``victory.''

I, like so many Americans, have tried to be patient with this administration in extricating us from the difficulties we find ourselves in in Iraq. They first told us there were weapons of mass destruction. None were found, yet we were still patient. Then they told us we were there to remove a tyrant. We removed Saddam Hussein, yet we are still there, and we continue to be patient. They told us we were there to fight terrorism, and we have been fighting terrorism, and we still remain patient.

Now they tell us that we are there to make our families safer. Well, I don't feel that my family is any safer as a result of our being in Iraq. And like the American people, I am losing patience with the hollow promises that this administration has made about getting us out of Iraq.

I rise today in support of this rule because I think that it is time that we change the course, we change the direction. How many strategies is this administration going to adopt before they arrive at success?

Last night in the Rules Committee I got to thinking as we were discussing this rule about my own children, about my family, and I thought about how would my children look at me later in life, how would my grandchildren look at me later on, in terms of how we tried to stop this conflict in Iraq. Then I thought about a situation that I talked about a lot during my campaign.

During my campaign, when I was trying to decide whether or not I would run, my son and my daughter, who are both teenagers, were not supportive of that. One day my son said to me, Dad, what is it that a Congressman does? I started telling my son what a Congressman does.

He said, Dad, are you saying that if you get to Congress, you will be able to stop the war in Iraq?

I said, Not alone, but certainly with the other Members of Congress.

He said then, I really think that you should run for Congress, because the war in Iraq is a bad thing and too many people are dying.

My son, then 15 years old, got it. He understood what it was about. He understood that we are in Iraq for the wrong reason. He understood that it was time to change the course and change the direction.

That is why I rise today. I rise because I support the rule that will get us out of Iraq, but, more importantly, because my children know that it is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 330.

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

House Resolution 330 provides for consideration of H.R. 1332, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. The rule makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Small Business as an original bill for purpose of amendment. The rule makes in order all four germane amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. And finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, this bipartisan legislation, crafted under the leadership of my colleague from New York, chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez, maintains support of a wide range of organizations, including the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Dental Association, the American Veterans, and American College of Physicians.

Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. In my home State of New York, 99 percent of all businesses are small businesses, and they employ 52 percent of the nonfarm, private sector workforce. In 2005, an estimated 62,000 new small firms began operations in New York, creating $77 billion in entrepreneurial income for the State of New York.

In my district and across this country, Americans depend on small businesses to drive the economy and provide essential everyday services. Sadly, it is a constant struggle for many of these entrepreneurs just to keep the lights on, as larger companies continue to push out the mom and pop businesses in the cities and towns across the country.

My constituents in upstate New York have experienced this loss firsthand. I am proud to have the opportunity, as a member of the distinguished Rules Committee, to manage this rule for such an important piece of legislation for our Nation's small businesses.

The Small Business Lending Improvements Act will help strengthen our Nation's small businesses by updating and streamlining two of the Small Business Administration's largest financing programs, the 7(a) and 504 loan programs.

This bill will make the 7(a) program more affordable for both borrowers and lenders by reducing fees and increasing the SBA guarantee on 7(a) loans. It will also modernize the 504 Certified Development Company Program by improving the ability of CDCs to liquidate defaulted loans and by requiring their local community leaders be included on every CDC board of directors. And it will make permanent the Community Express Program, providing increased access to capital for socially and economically disadvantaged small business owners.

This bill also establishes two important new 7(a) loan programs, one to encourage private health care providers to establish practices in federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas, and one to assist our Nation's veterans in starting or expanding a small business.

Despite an abundance of health professionals, New York State has 102 communities designated by the Federal Government as Health Professional Shortage Areas. Only 16 percent of the physicians practicing in New York provide services in these medically underserved areas. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the district I am privileged to represent is short nearly 70 dental, primary care and mental health practitioners. Further, a handful of counties I represent don't even have a resident OB/GYN, forcing thousands of women to travel 40 to 50 miles just to seek routine care.

Madam Speaker, this problem is not confined to upstate New York. Over 60 million Americans currently live in medically underserved areas across the country. The Small Business Lending Improvements Act will address this critical shortage by establishing a 7(a) loan program that reduces lender and borrower fees by half and increases the government guarantee to 90 percent of the doctors and dentists serving Health Professional Shortage Areas.

These financial incentives are critical to encouraging private health care providers to establish practices in underserved areas and to expand access to quality health care for millions of Americans.

Madam Speaker, this legislation will also ensure that our returning servicemen and women are afforded every opportunity to start or expand a small business by establishing a dedicated 7(a) loan program for veterans.

An estimated 900 of New York's Reservists currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are self-employed, and another 100 are considered key employees within small businesses. The absence of these men and women during 12- or 15-month deployments often forces the small businesses they own to operate at greatly reduced levels, at times declining to near startup conditions by the time the owner returns. An absence due to deployment is most detrimental to the smallest towns where many Reserve and Guard members operate businesses essential to the community.

The Small Business Lending Improvements Act will help address the obstacles faced by small business owners deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan by eliminating borrower and lender fees and increasing to 90 percent the government guarantee for loans to veterans under the 7(a) program.

According to American Veterans National Commander Thomas C. McGriff, ``These lenders fees, which can amount to thousands of dollars, are due up front and can deter entrepreneurs from seeking financial assistance altogether.''

Madam Speaker, by creating a lender structure tailored specifically for veterans, this bill will encourage entrepreneurship and help to repay the enormous debt we owe to our brave men and women in uniform.

Madam Speaker, it is our Nation's small businesses that keep our Nation's economy moving full speed ahead. Let's take this opportunity to provide further encouragement for the creation of new small businesses and for our Nation's existing small business owners to expand

I am proud to support this bipartisan legislation and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 317 provides for consideration of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting

Rights Act of 2007, and H.R. 1906, a direct spending offset bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation was built upon the principle that it is patently unjust to require free men and women to pay taxes to a government within which they have no direct involvement; a principle so important that the Founding Fathers knew if they were unsuccessful they would become outlaws and probably forfeit their lives.

The fact that approximately 600,000 U.S. citizens live under taxation without representation within the United States today is repugnant to our very notion of democracy. How can the United States deny democracy in its Capital while it promotes democracy abroad?

These citizens pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes, have sacrificed their lives in Iraq and other wars since the American Revolution.

However, when you look at the text of the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, ``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,'' you might ask yourself: Since there is no mention of the District of Columbia in this amendment, and it only refers to ``the several States,'' then how is it that D.C. residents are required to pay Federal income taxes?

The answer is that Congress, by statute, specifically, enacted the District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947, which imposed Federal income taxation on the residents of the District of Columbia.

And when the law was challenged in the courts in 1970 in the case of Breakefield v. D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld both the tax and Congress's constitutional authority to levy it. Further, the Supreme Court later denied even to hear the appeal.

This is taxation without representation at its worst, and it is completely undemocratic. Furthermore, what is clearly evident from the Court's review of Breakefield is that if Congress can levy taxes on D.C. residents without a constitutional amendment, then surely Congress can give D.C. residents a full voting representative within the House of Representatives without a constitutional amendment. This notion that there is a binding precedent for Congress to legislate on all matters related to the District of Columbia is further supported by decisions in such cases as Tidewater, and Adams v. Clinton.

Our actions today would correct this injustice by granting the citizens of our Nation's Capital a full voting representative in the House of Representatives.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and that we in Congress will be acting outside the power enacting this bill. This is not true. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of Congress. And among the powers listed, article I, section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia. Article I, section 8 also gives Congress the power ``to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper'' to execute the enumerated powers.

Further, in 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, giving residents of the new District of Columbia the right to vote. Since the Capital was still being established, citizens were allowed to continue voting in their States, Maryland and Virginia. Congress then took that right away by statute in 1800 when the Federal Government assumed control of the District. In the political battles that followed, District residents were denied a vote in Congress. Now, certainly, if Congress can grant the right and then remove that right by statute, so too can it reinstate the right by statute if it so chooses.

In the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall said: ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, they are constitutional.''

Extending full representation in the House to residents of the District of Columbia is a legitimate end. It is within the scope of Congress' power to exercise exclusive legislation in matters concerning the District of Columbia and consistent with not only the letter of the Constitution, but also the spirit in which the Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers, that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.''

Too much time has passed. Every day that we fail to act is one more day that we deny democracy. It is time to correct this grave injustice and provide the citizens of the District of Columbia the same rights afforded to every other citizen in this great Nation. Our actions today will do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but I could not disagree with him more.

First of all, this bill does not attempt to create statehood for the District of Columbia. In fact, as I said just a few moments ago, the legislation that has been passed in prior occasions, the one, in fact, with respect to requiring residents of the District of Columbia to pay income tax, despite the fact that the 16th amendment says that it is for the residents of the States, indicates very clearly that the District of Columbia is not a State and, rather, that Congress has the authority and the ability to make legislation with respect to the District of Columbia. In the Tidewater case, again Congress came forward and said that diversity jurisdiction applies to the District of Columbia even though it is not a State, and clearly that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

So this is not without precedent. This is something that Congress has done in the past because under article I, section 8, they have exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.

A couple of other points that I just would like to respond to. My colleague said that the majority just won't listen to reason, and I can't help but think that maybe that is what was said about the Founding Fathers by the members of parliament, that the people in America just won't listen to reason. How dare they talk about being represented just because we tax them?

This issue is critical. We tax the people in the District of Columbia. They are citizens of the United States. They fight and they die in our wars. They should be able to have a voting Member in Congress.

He also said that the majority has sunk to an all-time low. I am very troubled by that. If giving the right to vote to Americans, giving the right to vote to people who live here in the District of Columbia, in our capital, is sinking to an all-time low, then that is where I want to be, because clearly that is what we should be doing. We spend billions of dollars in other places in the world to ensure that citizens in other places in the world have the right to vote. We certainly should be able to do that here in our own country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

The rule contains two motions to recommit, one for each bill.

If either bill is not passed, then both bills are defeated.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you, sir.

This rule ensures that neither of the two bills can achieve passage in the House without being subject to a motion to recommit. Now, you talk about fairness. My colleague talks about fairness, and he believes in fairness as we all do. But that is what this bill is about; this bill is about fairness.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, again, talks about fairness, and fairness is why we are here today.

He talks about what we are trying to do today. What we are trying to do is give the residents of the District of Columbia their long overdue right to vote. That is why we are here today. The procedure that we are following is fair, it is just, and the important thing for us to remember is why we are here, and that is to give the right to vote to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Texas and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for their spirited debate in this issue. I would also like to thank my distinguished colleague from the District of Columbia for her leadership on this issue and her passion. She has shown such incredible focus in terms of what she feels and what she believes, and it is contagious and I commend her for it.

This is an issue that is not only important to the residents to the District of Columbia, but it is important for the residents of the entire country because it is about giving the right to vote to people who deserve it. And that is what our country was founded on and that is what we are all about.

In my closing, I would just like to mention several points that were discussed in the previous debate, and one of them was brought up by my colleague from North Carolina. And I am troubled by the fact that he is attempting to talk about power grabs and talking about turning this issue into a political issue. This is not a political issue. It never has been. That is what the American people don't want out of their Congress. They want debate on issues that are important to the people.

This is something that is important to all of America. It is important to the residents of Utah, and it is important to the residents of the District of Columbia. It is not about a power grab. It is not about politics. And that is what the American people don't want to hear their Representatives in Congress talking about. They want to hear about why we support a bill. And the reason that this bill is important, the reason that this bill is critical is because it is constitutional.

My colleague from Texas said that the end doesn't justify the means, and I agree with him; the end cannot justify the means. This bill is not about that. This bill is clearly constitutional.

And I remind my colleague from North Carolina that if he looks at why Congress originally set up the District of Columbia, it was because the capital was in Philadelphia, and they were not able to do the kinds of things in Philadelphia that they wanted to because Pennsylvania was a sovereign State and they couldn't tell the State of Pennsylvania what they wanted done. So they came upon this idea to create a district, a district which they would have control over. That is why the District of Columbia was set up. That is why we are debating this bill today.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is, as I said, about fairness. They are talking about everything but what is important. They are talking about every fact except the important fact, and that is that this bill is about giving the right to vote to citizens of the United States. That is what is important.

Nearly 600,000 citizens of Washington, D.C. have waited far too long for equal representation in this Chamber. They have sacrificed their lives defending this great Nation and paid their fair share of taxes. We have an opportunity to correct this grave injustice and provide to the citizens of our Nation's Capital the most important right of all, and that is the full right to vote.

I want to commend again the Delegate from Washington (Ms. Norton) for her tireless efforts that have brought us here for this historic day. It is this type of passion and commitment that further strengthens our democracy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 12, 32-year-old Utica police officer Thomas Lindsey was shot and killed in the line of duty during a routine traffic stop in Utica, New York, my hometown.

A 5\1/2\-year veteran of the Utica police force, Tom served for more than a year with an elite squad tasked with handling special assignments. Tom was the kind of guy that, as a teenager, he traveled to Mexico one summer just to build churches. And prior to his tenure as a Utica police officer, he served our Nation honorably as a U.S. Marine as an embassy guard.

As a former district attorney, I had the distinct privilege of working hand in hand with the dedicated men and women of the Utica Police Department. This loss affects those brave men and women and their families hardest of all.

Tom put his life on the line in the Marines and as a police officer, and he paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect his country and the community. Losing someone like Tom is a great tragedy, but in this tragedy there is a lesson. We must learn from the way Tom lived his life and his commitment to public service, his community and his country.

My prayers are with Tom's mother, Carmella Lindsey-Schisler, his girlfriend, Lisa, and his family and coworkers.

I hope everyone can take a moment today to thank the men and the women in their local police departments who serve them so well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act.

Improvements in medical technology over the years allow for more servicemen and -women to survive injuries sustained in battle. During World War II, for every soldier that was killed, two were wounded. Now, this ratio is up to 16 to 1. These incredible medical developments allow many more men and women to return home to their families, but their injuries tend to be much more serious and, in many cases, require additional care for the rest of their lives.

Last month, I had the opportunity to visit with wounded soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Medical Center. I met several young men wounded in Iraq, one a constituent of mine from upstate New York. As I stood next to the mother of one of the soldiers, I saw a look of sadness on her face, and at that point it struck me, what if one of my two teenage children were lying in that bed? I know that I would want the absolute best treatment and care for my children, and our brave troops deserve nothing less.

Sadly, the administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq has extended to the home front as well. The selfless men and women who volunteered to defend their country have been callously neglected and were not only sent into battle without adequate resources, they also returned home to inadequate resources. When they asked for help, no one answered.

We make a promise to our soldiers to provide for them when they return home from battle, and it is absolutely unacceptable that this promise has been broken.

The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act will ensure that more than 25,000 servicemembers who have sustained injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan receive the world-class treatment and care and services they have so bravely earned and deserve. This bill creates an efficient system for the transition of records from the Department of Defense to the Veterans Administration. It establishes a support system of counselors, advocates and case managers to ensure timely, comprehensive care; and it establishes a number to call to report problems in facilities so that when a soldier asks for help someone answers.

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform deserve the absolute best care that this Nation has to offer. I urge my colleagues to renew our promise to our veterans by supporting this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act, would address an important issue surrounding our Nation's efforts to expand electric power to major urban areas, and that is, of course, the safety issue.

On the morning of March 12, 2007, a CSX freight train derailed approximately 34 cars near Oneida, New York. Reports indicate there was an evacuation covering a 1-mile radius. Luckily, there were no reported deaths or injuries. However, a large fire occurred at the scene, and residents and emergency responders reported hearing secondary explosions. CSX provided information that there were 40 tank cars carrying liquid petroleum gas in the train. What's more, the derailment closed the New York State Thruway for several hours, requiring traffic to be detoured miles out of the way.

Prior to this incident, there were 18 train derailments in western New York between January, 2005, and September, 2006, which further suggests the condition of New York State's freight railways are in need of serious attention and repair.

While this concern continues to trouble the people of New York, a private company is seeking to build a 190-mile high-voltage direct current transmission line from the town of Marcy in Oneida County, located in my district, to the town of New Windsor in Orange County in Mr. John Hall's district.

The company estimates that more than 90 percent of the proposed primary and alternative routes will follow existing rights-of-way, both along railroad tracks and natural gas lines. The transmission line would consist of 135-foot-tall towers and be operated with a rated power flow of 1,200 megawatts. A portion of the proposed route follows the New York Susquehanna & Western Railway right-of-way, which would run through some of the more heavily populated cities and towns in upstate New York. This is a situation where the consequences and risk are not only unknown but wholly unnecessary.

For these reasons, my amendment to H.R. 1401 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct an assessment of the safety and security vulnerabilities of placing high voltage direct current electric transmission lines along active railroad rights-of-way.

The assessment shall, at a minimum, evaluate the risks to local inhabitants and consumers of electric power transmitted by those lines, associated with a train collision or derailment that damages such electric transmission lines.

It is no secret that as our cities continue to grow they will need more energy, and I fully support addressing that need; but meeting that need must be done in a safe and a responsible way.

To this end, my amendment simply requires the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to take a hard look at our existing rail infrastructure and assess the security vulnerabilities so that we can avoid further electric power interruptions and preserve the safety of our constituents.

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

If the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman, yes.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, as I said, my amendment simply requires the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to take a hard look at our existing rail infrastructure and assess the security vulnerabilities so that we can avoid further electric power interruptions, while at the same time ensuring the health and safety of our citizens residing near high voltage power lines.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 260 provides for consideration of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate, with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the amendment printed in the report shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation was built upon the principle that it was patently unjust to require people to pay taxes to a government within which they had no direct involvement, what came to be familiarly called ``taxation without representation.'' The fact that approximately 600,000 U.S. citizens live under taxation without representation within the United States today is repugnant to our very notion of democracy and to those who fought and died in creating this great Nation. How can the United States deny democracy in its capital while it promotes democracy abroad?

These citizens pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes and have sacrificed their lives in Iraq and every other war since the American Revolution. This is taxation without representation at its worst, and it is completely undemocratic. No other democracy in the world denies to its citizens in its capital city the right to vote. We here in America, the symbol of democracy to so much of the world, must not deny that right to our citizens.

This bipartisan legislation would correct this injustice by granting the citizens of our Nation's capital with a voting representative in the House of Representatives.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that this legislation is unconstitutional, that we in Congress will be acting outside our power in enacting this bill. To this, I must respectfully and strongly disagree. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of Congress. Among the powers listed in Article I, section 8 states that Congress shall have the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over'' the District of Columbia. Article I, section 8 also gives Congress the power ``to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper'' to execute its enumerated powers.

Further, in 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, giving residents of the new District of Columbia the right to vote. Since the capital was still being established, citizens were allowed to continue voting in their States, Maryland and Virginia. Congress then took this right away by statute in 1800 when the Federal Government assumed control of the District of Columbia. In the political battles that followed, District residents were denied a vote in Congress. Certainly, if Congress can remove the right by statute, so too can it reinstate that right by statute.

In the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall said: ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''

Extending full representation in the House to residents of the District of Columbia is a legitimate end. It is within the scope of Congress' power to exercise exclusive legislation in matters concerning the District of Columbia and consistent with not only the letter of the Constitution but also the spirit in which the Constitution was written by our Founding Fathers, that is, ``taxation without representation is tyranny.''

I, for one, want to correct this grave injustice and provide the citizens of Washington, D.C. with the same rights afforded to every other citizen in this great Nation. Our actions today will do just that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with my friend and colleague from Texas. I think he is trying to characterize this bill as an attempt to create statehood for the District of Columbia, which is not what this bill does. This bill attempts to do what the Constitution says that Congress can do, and that is, exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District. That is what we are doing here, and there is precedent to that.

In 1949 in the Tidewater case, the Supreme Court upheld a decision which allowed Congress to give diversity jurisdiction to the District of Columbia, and now, generally, diversity jurisdiction only can occur between States, and despite the fact that clearly the District of Columbia was not a State, they were able, through an enactment by Congress, to be given that status of diversity jurisdiction.

The District of Columbia is not a State. It is not being treated as a State, but rather as a district for the capital, for the Federal capital. So it does have a special and unique treatment, and I think the Founding Fathers realized that it would be different, that it would not be like a State, and, in fact, it was part of the history why they came and created a capital.

When they were in Philadelphia, they were not happy with the fact that they had to constantly appeal to the Pennsylvania Legislature for the right to do different things, so they intended to create a capital that they would be able to have jurisdiction over.

That was the historical reason why the District of Columbia was created. So the fact that Congress then gave itself, or the Constitution gave Congress the right to make laws and make rules for the District of Columbia is the reason why today we are introducing this bill.

So I believe that we are not attempting to give D.C. statehood, but, rather, to give it a right to vote in this body, which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress and within the right of Congress to do.

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

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

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

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

Yes, sir, we have two additional speakers.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out, in listening to the debate, that when one looks at some of the decisions from the Supreme Court with respect to the steps that Congress, the powers of Congress, you can't help but think of Marbury v. Madison, which is one of the first great cases considered by Justice Marshall in the early Supreme Court.

In that case, the Supreme Court basically outlined what was the framework for the separation of power between the different branches of government. Basically, it set forth to Congress that it could not dictate to the Supreme Court or to the justice branch of government what the jurisdictions of or what their jurisdiction was.

Basically, what that decision came to recognize is the fact that within the particular branches of government, each branch has exclusive power and that only the Constitution can set jurisdiction.

Clearly, that is what we are doing here today. The Constitution makes it very clear that Congress has exclusive legislative right over the District. That is exactly what we are attempting to do today. We are attempting to give the District of Columbia the right to vote, as we are entitled to do, as the Constitution clearly enumerates that Congress has the right to do.

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

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks. He talks about bipartisanship. Frankly, I can't think of an issue that is more bipartisan than giving each and every American the right to vote. That is exactly what we are attempting to do here today.

You know, I can't help but think as a new Member of Congress that when we came down back in January to be sworn in, and my daughter and my family were here, one of the first things that my daughter said to me was noticing on a license plate ``taxation without representation.'' She asked me what that meant and why they were talking about that because she remembered studying about it in school.

It is critical. It is so important to us as a Nation to practice what we preach. We are in other places in the world. We are fighting wars for freedom, and we talk about how important it is to give people the right to vote and to be free, and that is exactly what we are doing here today.

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

We anticipate having our Speaker, and we continue to reserve the balance of our time.

I thank the gentleman from California, my colleague from the Rules Committee. And he points out that, yes, I think a legitimate question, how are we going to pay for this? I can't help but think that when it comes to giving people freedom and the right to vote, we must find a way to pay for it. In fact, we have spent $400 billion attempting to give the people in Iraq freedom and the right to vote. And if we can spend $400 billion in Iraq, then we can spend some money here to give the 600,000 people here in the District of Columbia the right to vote.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I would just like to point out that the gentleman from California says that he is not clearly not an expert on the Constitution, but I think he has a much better understanding of the Constitution than he admits.

You sound like you are strictly attempting to interpret the Constitution, a strict constructionalist. And that being the case, I think it is clear, a close reading of the Constitution gives Congress under Article I, section 8 exclusive legislation over all aspects of the District. So I think that it is clear in a strict reading of the Constitution that Congress has this ability.

I just would point out what I stated earlier. In the Tidewater case, the Supreme Court upheld the ability of Congress to designate the District of Columbia, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as a special creature, as not a State, but standing in certain respects in the same way that a State does. I think it is clearly within the power of Congress to do this, and I yield.

Reclaiming my time. And I think I just have to answer that by saying if you look at historically why Congress actually created the District, it was so that it would have jurisdiction over the area which it sat, not for the reason that you indicate.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman that if something is unconstitutional, certainly I would not support it, but I believe that this bill is constitutional, and I believe again Article I, section 8 makes it constitutional for Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, this is all about fairness. And in the spirit of fairness that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) talks about, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the nearly 600,000 citizens of Washington D.C. have waited far too long for equal representation in this Chamber. They have sacrificed their lives defending this great Nation, paid their fair share in taxes, and helped to build and run this great Nation.

We have an opportunity to correct this grave injustice and provide the citizens of our Nation's capital with the most important right of all, and that is, of course, the right to vote.

I want to commend the Delegate from Washington, D.C., for her tireless efforts that have brought us together on this historic day. It is that type of passion and commitment that further strengthens our democracy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee and fellow New Yorker for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for months I have said that our country needs a plan to ensure the timely redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. The previous Congress failed in their duty to provide oversight and refused to ask the tough questions regarding the management of this poorly planned and ill-conceived war. To say, as some of my Republican colleagues have, that passage of this legislation would somehow embolden our enemies or send the wrong message to our allies is just a blatant distortion of the truth.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act lays out for the first time a responsible and realistic strategy for completing our mission in Iraq and bringing our brave troops home as soon as possible. This is a responsible and deliberate plan to change the direction in Iraq without jeopardizing the safety and well- being of our soldiers. The legislation sets a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq with a date certain by August 2008 at the latest.

The war in Iraq increasingly strains our military, creating a crisis in the U.S. troop readiness and decreasing our ability to respond to new threats. With more than 3,200 troops dead, more than 24,000 troops wounded, and more than $400 billion of taxpayer dollars spent, we have paid too high a price.

We have a choice: We can continue the administration's open-ended commitment to a civil war in Iraq, or we can finish the job and begin a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act goes beyond a new direction for Iraq. It begins a new direction for our country, one in which veterans are taken care of, families provided for, and brave men and women in harm's way have the resources they need to get the job done.

The legislation provides $1 billion to fight the global war on terror by putting the focus back where it should have been all along, Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. The legislation would also provide $2.5 billion in additional funding to ensure our troops are properly equipped.

I would recommend a ``yes'' vote.

The legislation would also provide $2.5 billion in additional funding to ensure that our troops are properly equipped and trained; $2.8 billion for Defense Health Care; and $1.7 Billion for veterans' health care--including millions to address the maintenance backlog at VA health care facilities like Walter Reed--ensuring our veterans and troops get the care they need and deserve.

I am proud to associate myself with this legislation because it will change our direction in Iraq, and provides the new direction for our country that the American people demanded last November.

My constituents did not send me to Washington to serve as a rubber stamp for the Administration. I was sent to Washington to stand up against the mismanagement of this war and misplaced priorities of the Administration.

True victory will be achieved when we bring all of our brave troops home--alive and uninjured. I would ask that if my children were serving in Iraq, and we as a nation should ask nothing less for our brave troops.

Madam Speaker, Democrats made a promise last November to bring accountability back to Congress and the Federal Government. In just a few short months, we have conducted thorough and meaningful oversight on a series of issues that would have been swept under the rug by the previous Republican leadership, which sadly was often more concerned with protecting the administration than doing the right thing.

Earlier this week, the Justice Department, at the request of congressional Democrats, released thousands of pages of e-mails and internal documents related to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the administration. The documents indicate that the administration's contention that the attorneys were dismissed for performance-related reasons simply is not true.

This Congress is seeking to attain the rest of the story by asking senior White House officials involved in the U.S. Attorney scandal to testify under oath. Unfortunately, the administration does not want to comply and provide the American people with the facts.

As a former elected district attorney, I know how critically important it is for prosecutors to be independent and to perform their job without fear of retaliatory firings.

It is time for this administration to do the right thing and hold those responsible for the scandal accountable.

Mr. Chairman, it is time to rein in this administration's prevalent use of no-bid contracts. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the Accountability in Contracting Act.

In the last five years, spending on ``no-bid'' or ``sole-source'' contracts has more than doubled. The administration contends that in every one of these cases there were ``urgent and compelling needs'' that required these contracts to be awarded without a competitive bidding process. In the case of the emergency response to disasters like hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I don't dispute that the need was urgent, but for non-emergency contracting needs, we must get our fiscal house in order.

Just as any family has a budget to stick to, shouldn't we reach a point after an emergency when there has been enough time to consider multiple, competitive bids? A point after which the ``compelling needs'' are a little less urgent? By last June--nine months after Hurricane Katrina--$10.6 billion had been awarded to private contractors for recovery efforts, but only 30 percent of that had been awarded competitively.

I know of no small business in Upstate New York, who could get by without reasonably budgeting for their expenses--even in times of emergency. Why should taxpayer dollars be spent differently?

Oversight of these contracts has been no better. Audits have revealed that post-Katrina contractors have over-billed, double-billed, and billed for work that was never completed. The Defense Contractor Audit Agency found that through fiscal year 2006, over $10 billion in contractor charges in Iraq have been identified as ``questioned'' or ``unsupported.''

Under this administration, the use of ``cost plus'' contracts has increased more than seventy-five percent. These cost-plus contracts guarantee a contractor a fixed profit, regardless of how efficiently they spend the government's money--taxpayers' money. These contracts provide no incentive to look after the bottom line because they guarantee there will always be money off the top. When indefinite, no- bid contracts contain ``cost-plus'' provisions, the opportunity for foul play is only amplified.

The Accountability in Contracting Act addresses these concerns. This bill limits to roughly 8 months the time that federal no-bid contracts can last. It requires each federal agency that has awarded at least $1 billion in the preceding fiscal year to develop and implement a plan to minimize the use of contracts entered into using no-bid procedures and cost-reimbursement type contracts. The bill also establishes a system to increase competition in contract bidding and requires agencies that enter into a no-bid contract to make ``justification and approval'' documents public within fourteen days after awarding a contract.

Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to spend their hard-earned tax dollars in a fiscally responsible way. And the Accountability in Contracting Act will help reach that end by providing much-needed transparency to the way the federal government awards contracts.