Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1239, the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Established in 1998, the Network to Freedom encompasses over 250 programs, sites, and partners in over 27 states and the District of Columbia, and is the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation, and dissemination of Underground Railroad history.

Recent National Park Service financial projections, however, show the Network to Freedom budget reducing by 72 percent by the year 2011. Without continued and adequate funding, efforts to disseminate this critical history and build on the program's successes will be greatly diminished. H.R. 1239 will reauthorize the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act by increasing funding to cover needed operations costs for the National Parks Service to carry out the provisions of the program, and by increasing the availability of grant funding to support Underground Railroad preservation and interpretative projects throughout the United States.

With nine Network to Freedom sites throughout Delaware and reports that more passengers came through Wilmington on the Underground Railroad than any other place, this program has a real local significance. Underground Railroad stations were operated by a few very effective people throughout Delaware in Blackbird, Camden, Middletown, New Castle, Hockessin and Wilmington. Thomas Garrett, for example, is known as Delaware's greatest station master. Spending the greater part of his lifetime working in the Underground Railroad, Thomas Garrett is credited with helping 2,700 slaves reach freedom.

By playing a critical role in helping local communities to effectively share the stories of the men and women who resisted slavery through escape and flight in the Underground Railroad, this program highlights the rich history of Delaware and many other states and is an asset to our National Parks System. I believe strongly in promoting programs and partnerships to commemorate this time in history and educating the public about the historical significance of the Underground Railroad.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting passage of H.R. 1239.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from California for his work on this bill. I think that Congressman Schiff has done a wonderful job in putting together and listening to what needs to be done on H.R. 2630, the Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act, to end the practice of making campaign payments to a candidate's spouse; and I am in agreement to the legislation.

While I support going one step further to prohibit the same payments to immediate family members and introduced legislation to do so, I am pleased to lend my support to H.R. 2630, which I believe takes us in the right direction.

Some Members of Congress employ their spouses and family members for campaign activity without abusing the system; however, the practice of paying spouses and family members creates the potential for campaign finance and ethics abuses.

I listened carefully to the gentleman from Texas, who I think is very persuasive, anyhow, and understand his point of view, and as a matter of fact raises a couple of valid points. One is that the bill did not go through normal committee systems, which I think is a valid point. Another is the issue of lobbying by spouses and family members, which I think is perhaps even more abusive than what we are talking about here today and is something to be taken into consideration. But I do feel that if payment to a spouse becomes part of the Member's family income, the Member for all practical purposes is receiving a direct personal financial benefit of campaign funds, and I do believe that should be stopped.

Obviously, if the spouse wishes to work in some other capacity, that certainly would be allowed, but not directly involved with the campaign.

I believe there is a transparency issue here, and I believe that 2630 does move us in the direction of increased transparency, which I think is important; and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. This may not end all abuses in campaign circumstances and in many instances there would not be an abuse, but it does end the possibility of it and certainly the transparency end of it, which I think is very important, as well. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding time.

Let me thank Mr. Barton, who has been a tremendous leader in medical research in this country.

I couldn't agree with him more. I think this amendment is of extraordinary importance. I would ask every single Member of Congress to think about who comes into your office, and I guarantee no less than 30 percent, maybe 50 percent, are there for health reasons. They are concerned about cancer, they are concerned about heart, they are concerned about lung, MS, AIDS, whatever it may be. That is who comes into our office.

We need to appropriate whatever funds are necessary in order to try to eliminate these diseases or to make these people's lives better who contract these diseases.

I understand exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying. He is absolutely right. You do need evaluation, and you do need to be able to understand how to get this information out to the various people who are going to apply this information. I don't believe that is happening particularly well. I do not feel that $700 million is needed for that, and if it is, it shouldn't have to go through NIH and be taken away from NIH, which is what is happening now. It should go directly to HHS or wherever else it needs to go in order to carry out that responsibility. There is a mixup, in my judgment, for these last 16 years in terms of how this funding is handled.

This amendment is absolutely in order, and I would hope that every single Member of Congress who believes in medical research, and I think we all do, and who believes in helping our constituents will support this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I would just like to make two brief points, perhaps to Chairman Obey, about this bill that concern me, although I think the bill is well done. I am basically supportive of it.

The first is something which the President has vetoed, the stem cell research legislation. Back in August of 2001, he signed an order which allowed 21 different stem cell lines to be developed. There was a lot of discussion that in this particular bill that we could have actually updated that date from 2001 until 2007.

There have been 400 private lines developed since that time; that is, without any Federal dollars whatsoever. They could have been used for research by anybody if indeed we could have had it approved in this legislation. As a result of that, I drafted an amendment to do just that. But I have been informed that it will not be in order if I were to present it, so I will not present it.

I think this is a missed opportunity. I say to the chairman, because he was supportive of the stem cell research, that my judgment is we should do everything in our power to be able to enhance and to further that research in America. This was an opportunity which is unfortunately lost.

The other point I would like to make also deals with health, which is a matter of great concern to all of us, obviously, and that is the increase in NIH research. Basically, when you boil it all down, the increase here is 1.9 percent. It has been widely discussed that it's 2.6 percent. But this includes $900 million to the global HIV/AIDS fund that will be transferred immediately to the Department of State. It will not go directly into research.

The amount which is left is 1.9 percent, which would be almost the smallest increase for NIH in 38 years. We will lose length and quality of life to disease and disability. New research opportunities will go unfunded. The number of new therapies will continue to decline. Flat funding may discourage, along with the embryonic stem cell research going by the boards, the best and brightest young scientists remaining in the United States. Another year of failure to provide sustained, strong growth and Federal support for medical research is a problem.

Madam Chairman, I would hope before it is all said and done that we can address these two issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us today mandating a hard deadline for the Secretary of Defense to significantly reduce our troop presence in Iraq.

Over the last several months, similar attempts on the part of the Democratic leadership to require an arbitrary date for troop withdrawal have gone nowhere, wasting precious time debating legislation that would be vetoed by the President. While I believe strongly that we must change course in Iraq and bring our men and women home, it would be a mistake for Congress to think it could disregard the complexity of this conflict by simply picking a random date for withdrawal. Forcing such an important decision without considering the advice of military and foreign policy leaders, could lead to the loss of many more lives and open the door for sectarian chaos to spread across the entire Middle East.

For this reason, I have been a leading supporter of the Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, which in December 2006 outlined a comprehensive approach for bringing a responsible conclusion to the conflict in Iraq. In fact, in early 2007, I went to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and called on the Bush Administration to change course in Iraq and implement the Study Group's recommendations for a new, robust diplomatic offensive in the Middle East. Since then, Secretary of State Rice has taken several encouraging steps to open the lines of communication with key nations like Iran and Syria, and I am hopeful that my efforts, and those of my colleagues, have prompted the White House to improve its diplomatic efforts in the region.

This September, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will submit a very important report regarding the conflict in Iraq. While I am hopeful that this report will show progress, I also feel strongly that we must begin developing a responsible postsurge strategy. Therefore, on June 5, 2007, I joined over forty other Members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats--in introducing the Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act. The Study Group recommendations, which would bolster diplomacy, improve political and economic reconstruction, and handoff the combat mission to the Iraqis, represent the first truly bipartisan proposal for ending this conflict and bringing Americans home.

Clearly, there is no easy solution in Iraq. Still, it is extremely discouraging that the Democratic leadership continues to hold votes on ``symbolic'' withdrawal timelines, while refusing to consider the bipartisan Iraq Study Group proposal--legislation that as of today has been cosponsored by 25 Democrats and 33 Republicans in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission serves as a model for how we must work together in a responsible fashion to stabilize Iraq and get our brave soldiers off the streets. Rather than wasting time debating arbitrary timelines that disregard the complexity of the situation, it is critical that we come together now in support of a responsible exit strategy. I am encouraged that thirteen additional Members of Congress have signed-on to the Iraq Study Group Implementation Act since we introduced it over a month ago and I am hopeful that Members from across the political spectrum will join me in uniting behind this crucial effort.

Madam Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Florida tremendously for his work on this. And I, too, rise in strong support of the Hastings-Castle amendment expressing congressional intent that the operations and grants budget for the Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program receive adequate funding.

I understand Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt are willing to accept the amendment; so I will be brief.

By helping local communities share the stories of the men and women who resisted slavery through escape and flight in the underground railroad, the Network to Freedom is a tremendous historical resource. Without continued and adequate funding, efforts to operate and provide grants to support a variety of underground railroad preservation and interpretive projects throughout the United States will be greatly diminished.

Promoting programs and partnerships to commemorate this time in history and educating the public about the historical significance of the underground railroad are vital. It is for this reason we offer this amendment today.

Again, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida. We in Delaware have a lot of involvement with the underground railroad during that time. I think it is a significant part of our history.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2638, the Fiscal Year 2008 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

The tragic terrorist attacks of 2001, and the destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, made clear that we must improve our nation's ability to prepare for and respond to disasters. In the days and weeks following these events, the United States Congress acted quickly to provide our Nation's first-responders with the resources and equipment they need to ensure our security.

The bill before us today provides critical resources for vital national security requirements, including increased border patrol agents, port security improvements, and grants for America's firefighters. Still, although continued funding for such important programs is essential, it is obvious that increased spending alone cannot solve every problem.

Since its creation in 2002, the Department of Homeland Security has at times suffered from wasteful spending decisions and business management shortcomings. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to correct many of these deficiencies--and instead would boost funding levels well above what experts at the Department have requested.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission also characterized the federal focus on aviation security following the 2001 terrorist attacks as ``fighting the last war,'' and noted that ``opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation.'' In the wake of attacks on subway trains in London and on passenger rail lines in Madrid and Mumbai, it is clear that terrorist organizations are intent on disrupting surface transportation systems and mass transit around the world. Despite the 9/11 Commission's warning, the legislation before us today continues to provide billions for aviation security, while failing to prioritize rail and transit spending.

Mr. Chairman, it is our duty to make certain that we have an effective national security system, capable of ensuring the safety of all Americans. I am concerned that H.R. 2638 fails to adequately achieve this goal and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this bill as we move forward with the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I also thank those who've worked so hard on this, the gentleman from Michigan, the head of the Judiciary Committee, for his great work. Obviously, the extraordinary work of Carolyn McCarthy. We know her personal story and how touching it is; and Mr. Dingell for his work on this legislation.

I do rise in strong support of H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. As I've indicated, many people have worked hard on this legislation, and for that we owe them a great deal of thanks.

H.R. 2640 would enforce existing laws to help States automate and share disqualifying records like felony criminal convictions, mental disability and domestic violence incidents with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System database. By increasing the quantity and quality of data available for the background checks of potential gun buyers, we will strengthen a system that has proven vulnerable.

Funding has been provided through the National Criminal History Improvement Program to help States update, automate and improve their records. However, we were reminded of the gaps in the current Federal background check system in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. A lack of reporting of those who are mentally adjudicated allowed the shooter, who should have been barred under Federal regulations from purchasing a firearm because of his history of mental illness, to purchase two handguns. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 is critical to strengthen public safety and prevent gun violence.

Consideration of this legislation is long overdue. As an advocate of strengthening the NICS database for many years, I am pleased to lend my support to H.R. 2640. A background check is only as good as the records included in the database, and all relevant records relating to persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal law must be included in the NICS. It is my hope that the funding provided in bill will help States to act quickly and to improve their reporting.

This legislation represents a true compromise, a public safety measure that will prevent gun violence and protect the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

I think it's very important to note that we have two diverse groups coming together, the NRA and the Brady Group, coming together to help work out this legislation, and both had some benefits from it. Hopefully, perhaps a lesson we can all learn here on the floor.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital measure, and I hope that we can support it and prevent future tragedies in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2358, the Native American $1 Coin Act, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

The Native American $1 Coin Act directs the Treasury Department to mint and issue $1 coins to celebrate the important contributions made by Indian tribes and Native Americans to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a terrific complement to the Presidential $1 Coin Act that I worked to pass last Congress with the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney). Like that program and the very popular 50-state quarter program, this bill will provide an enormous educational opportunity for parents and teachers, while at the same time recognizing the immense and important contributions of Native Americans to the history of the United States.

Implementation of this legislation will save taxpayers more than half a billion dollars over the next decade. When Congress passed the Presidential $1 Coin Act in December of 2005, the bill required one- third of all dollar coins minted each year to bear the design of the Sakakawea coin that was first issued in 2000. The requirement was intended to keep the image and memory of Sakakawea in the public's mind at the same time the Mint produced and issued coins bearing the images of the Presidents.

Unfortunately, through no fault of the design or its subject, there is not a large demand for a dollar coin with a static design. It is that problem we sought to overcome with the Presidential dollar by creating a constantly

changing design that encourages the public to look for new coins.

The current law requires the Mint to issue 300 to 350 million of the current design Sakakawea dollars every year, for which there is no evident demand. That would be about $60 million worth of material and labor costs per year, not including the high cost of storing the unused coin yearly.

The innovative legislation was introduced by Mr. Kildee, Chairman Frank, Mr. Cole and Mr. Renzi. The bill would keep the Sakakawea design on the front of the coin, but would change the design on the reverse side each year to represent Native American contributions to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will both honor Native Americans and create demand for the coins similar to the Presidential dollars. Instead of the Mint spending $50 million or more a year to make coins for which there is no demand, the legislation has the potential to save the Treasury $150 million a year or more. It is rare that we can do something so cost effective this easily. I support the goals of this bill and urge its immediate passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished Congresswoman from Michigan, Candice Miller.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I also would like to thank all of the sponsors of this legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for the managing of it here, Mr. Kildee, for his interest in this, and Mrs. Miller for coming to the floor and speaking to it.

I think this is a very worthwhile piece of legislation which will move forward something which otherwise would not move forward, and will save the Federal Government a lot of money and make it far more interesting to those who are collecting these coins out around the country.

So for all these reasons, I hope we would all support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and career of Colonel Ronald A. Rutland. Colonel Rutland is the commander of the 512th Airlift Wing at the Dover Air Force Base. Colonel Rutland is a distinguished member of the Reserves Officers Association with more than 6,500 flying hours in training, airlift and tanker experience. I commend Colonel Rutland for his years of public service defending our Nation.

Colonel Rutland received a Bachelor Degree of Political Science at Mississippi State University in 1973, and in 1977 attended the Squadron Officer School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Colonel Rutland's passion for learning never subsided, and in 1988, he went back to school to receive his Masters of Aeronautical Science at Embry-Riddle University.

Colonel Rutland received his undergraduate pilot training at the Columbus Air Force Base in 1973. From 1977 until the present, Colonel Rutland has served in various areas of command, including Air Training, Strategic Air Command, and Air Mobility Command, at six different Air Force Bases within the United States. Most recently, Colonel Rutland served in Iraq as the commander of the 447th Air Expeditionary Group at Sather Air Base.

Ronald has served as a distinguished member of the United States Air Force for 34 years and has been honored on several occasions for his service. He has received countless awards such as the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Air Force Longevity Service Award with six oak leaf clusters.

I join with the people of Delaware to thank Colonel Rutland for his continued dedication to the Air Force. He has served in a role that can be difficult at times, but is a necessity to the security of our Nation. I commend him for a life of service and thank him for his tireless dedication to Delaware and the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commemorate an important anniversary of service to the Town of Newport and the entire State of Delaware.

On May 21, 1907, concerned citizens met in the historic town of Newport to discuss the formation of a fire company. At the time, there had been numerous fires which destroyed properties before the already established fire companies in Wilmington, New Castle and Newark could arrive and fight the blazes. After much discussion and debate, Lt. Governor John M. Mendinhall suggested to the 68 founders that the company should be named the Minquas Fire Company No. 1 commemorating a tribe of Native American Indians who traded with early settlers along the Christiania River.

From its genesis, the Minquas Fire Company has taken great pride in providing volunteer fire rescue and emergency medical services to the citizens of greater Newport. They began by purchasing property in the unit block of North James Street. Several extensions and expansions have taken place over the years the most recent being the erection of an ultra modern facility in 2005.

Minquas' first President Howard P. Weldin and Chief Thomas Bullen oversaw the original building project and the construction of the first fire house. In 1908, a horse drawn chemical engine was purchased from Radnor Fire Company of Pennsylvania for $1,000 and put in service at the brand new station.

Today President Curtis Clifton and Chief Michael Saggione command the Fire Company. Through their leadership, Minquas has continued to acquire the latest fire, rescue, ambulance apparatus and equipment to respond to the emergency service needs of their community. The Company's Motto ``We go where duty calls'' exemplifies the volunteer spirit of the men and women of the Minquas Fire Company No. 1.

I am proud of the contributions the volunteers of Minquas have made to Delaware over all these years and I congratulate them on this important milestone of 100 years of service.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and for all his work on the this issue. I also obviously thank my coauthor and good friend on this, Diana DeGette, for her tremendous work on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which ethically expands the current Federal embryonic stem cell research policy.

I think we should make a note, this is a Senate bill we are dealing with now. It's changed from our House bill. While we considered similar legislation before, and we have referred to it, this bill has since been expanded to develop methods of deriving stem cells without destroying a human embryo. That's an addition to what we have considered before.

With this bill we have a real opportunity to make history, to jump- start research, which may lead to treatments and cures for countless diseases, including diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer.

There are a number of things being stated here that I consider to be myths, and I would like to try to correct some of these in the brief time that I have.

First, this bill does not expand Federal funding and, in fact, does not contain any funds whatsoever. The expansion in the bill refers to the source of the embryos and the quality of stem cell lines. These stem cells would be developed from embryos that come from IVF clinics, which receive no Federal funding. There would be no Federal funding involved in that whatsoever.

Second, it is important to understand that we are only talking about research on embryos that would otherwise be thrown away as medical waste.

That is a decision which is made by those who created the embryo and whoever was running the IVF clinic before the subject of using them for research was ever brought up. So you are dealing solely with embryos on which the decision has been made to have them eliminated as medical waste, because, simply, they don't want to continue to pay for the storage of the embryo or whatever it may be. So anyone who refers to it as killing needs to understand that's going to happen anyhow. That's a decision that's been made. No stem cell would ever be taken from an embryo that was not destined to be destroyed in any event.

Third, the bill specifically states the embryos must be created for purposes of fertility treatment, and no money may have exchanged hands. We think there should be a greater ethical process in all of this, and all of that is spelled out very carefully in this particular legislation.

Fourth, as to the recent announcement of returning mature cells, perhaps, in the skin to an embryonic state which we have been reading about in the last day or two with respect to mice, we need to point out a couple of things: One, that's mice, not human beings; and there is a vast difference. Another interesting point is that these

would not be eligible for Federal research dollars because they were derived after August 9, 2001.

Fifth is this whole issue of pluripotency and what could be done here. There is the constant argument here that adult stem cells have actually been able to resolve some problems. I am all for that. I am 100 percent for all the medical research which goes on. That's what this is all about.

I believe the embryonic stem cells can extend beyond that. I believe the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, which is supported by so many scientists in this country, is what can make a difference. You don't see that in the others. I would encourage everybody to follow the medical and scientific institutions who are in support of this.

Just finishing the point with respect to the pluripotency, nothing has been stated with respect to the embryonic and umbilical stem cells, that they do have the same pluripotency, as do to embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any cell as far as your body is concerned.

There are approximately 500 medical and scientific universities throughout the country, and various other individuals and groups, Michael J. Fox and others, who support the stem cell research and ask us to vote in favor of lifting restrictions on potentially lifesaving medical research.

I would encourage a ``no'' vote on any motion to recommit to restructure the legislation and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The legislation before us, which I support, has in it a provision banning lobbying by spouses in the office of the individual whose spouse it is. And I am very supportive of that. I think it is something that we should do, but I think it should go a little further than that. And this is a sense of Congress in which we are going to cast a wider net in terms of being careful about who is lobbying.

I am concerned that family members other than just spouses, obviously including children, parents, brothers, sisters, direct family members, lobbying can be extremely maybe unfairly influential in terms of what happens in the Congress of the United States. Obviously, if the spouse of a committee chair come to you, and you are on that particular committee, that could have an adverse influence as far as your decisionmaking is concerned. And I think we need to be careful about that.

I have done this, though not as a specific prohibition, but as a caution in the form in which we find it. And I also noted a recent poll suggesting that 80 percent of Americans believe it is wrong for lawmakers and their staffs to have contact with family members of other lawmakers who are lobbyists.

I believe in openness and transparency. I think it is essential to all that we do. And I believe if somebody has an unfair, unstated advantage in terms of what they are doing, it is something that we in Congress should pay attention to.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the work on the bill and for the acceptance of this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 388, the rule for consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act.

As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I strongly believe we must enact all of the 9/11 Commission's intelligence recommendations, even those that apply to our own congressional committees.

In its final report, the 9/11 Commission concluded that: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by the current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.''

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report and the subsequent 9/11 Public Disclosure Project recommended three alternatives for reforming congressional oversight of intelligence. These options include: one, establishing a Joint Committee on Intelligence modeled after the old Joint Committee on Atomic Energy; two, establishing House and Senate Committees on Intelligence with authorizing and appropriating authority; or, three, establishes a new Appropriations Subcommittee on Intelligence.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress enacted a large majority of the Commission's recommendations. However, as it turns out, it has been those recommendations that apply directly to the tangled rules and procedures here in the United States Congress that have been left unfinished.

Earlier this year the Democratic leadership attempted to apply a Band-Aid to this problem by creating a powerless Intelligence Oversight Panel that has very little control over actual funding decisions. This is clearly not what the 9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, its report plainly states that, ``tinkering with the existing committee structure is not sufficient.''

This week I offered a simple amendment to the bill before us, calling for a sense of Congress that this House should act to implement these crucial 9/11 recommendations, but it was denied under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have insisted that we implement all of these important recommendations, even those that are difficult. We will be doing this country a disservice until we put in place an effective committee structure capable of giving our national intelligence agencies the oversight, support and leadership they need.

I urge the defeat of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank both Mr. George Miller and Mr. McKeon. I am in total agreement with them on this legislation. I also would like to thank the staff for their working on this.

I think it is a shame that we have gone through the last few months and all the revelations of the problems in the student loan industry on a whole variety of levels. I am not here to attribute blame to anybody at this point but to suggest we do have a role in getting involved in this and to make a difference. I will submit my prepared statement, but I would like to go just a little beyond that.

I think everyone in America, in terms of being competitive, has to do everything we can to educate our young children. Clearly, student loans by the individual students and the families need to be taken into consideration, but so does the cost of college.

As we look at the Higher Education Act which Chairman Miller referenced, it is vitally important that we make sure that our colleges are being closely analyzed in terms of keeping those costs down. The Federal Government cannot do it all with respect to grants and loans or whatever it may be. Indeed, we need to close the gap between the cost of college and what people can afford. Hopefully, we can continue to work on this.

This is a wonderful first step. I hope everyone is supportive of H.R. 890. I certainly am supportive of it and concur with statements that have been made today.

I rise in support of H.R. 890, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, which will return the focus of the financial aid process to serving the needs and interests of students. H.R. 890 is the first step in ensuring that the federal student aid program is kept on a firm foundation for generations to come.

As Congress moves towards reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, the reforms in H.R. 890 are steps in the right direction to ensure the financial aid system works for students and colleges alike.

In addition to this bill, the Committee has also held one investigative hearing on findings by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo on the relationship between student loan lenders and the financial aid offices in institutions of higher education. Tomorrow the Committee will hold a second in investigative hearing, asking U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings about alleged lapses in the Department's oversight of the federal student loan programs. Additionally, Mr. Petri and I have sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) requesting information from them about the private loan industry. By answering some of these questions and by passing this legislation today, I am hopeful Congress can work to restore confidence in the federal student loan system.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 890, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, to help serve the needs and interests of our students and to restore confidence in our federal loan system.