Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member from New York for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of this amendment. I believe its passage is important to ensure that our local first responders are prepared for major disasters.

Over the years, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel have repeatedly answered the call of duty. In fact, my home State of Delaware, which is served almost entirely by volunteer firefighters, sent 37 ambulances to New York City on September 11. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as fires spread throughout New Orleans and survivors struggled to find dry land, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel rose to the occasion and proved to be crucial in the massive rescue operation.

Unfortunately, under current law, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel are not protected from termination or demotion by their employer when they respond to national disasters.

As a result, just a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina destroyed the gulf coast, a group of us got together here on Capitol Hill to craft this legislation which will make certain that our volunteer responders are more readily available to assist local authorities in major disasters.

This proposal is similar to the job protections given to members of the National Guard who serve their country on the battlefield, and it will go a long way in enhancing our ability to respond to catastrophic events and save lives.

Mr. Chairman, last Congress, we collected over 70 bipartisan co- sponsors on this legislation. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New Jersey and his introduction of this and all the others who have been involved. I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise to offer a critical amendment to this legislation before us today.

Yesterday, it was revealed that several individuals operating out of the Philadelphia area had plotted to attack key installations in the Northeast, including Fort Dix, New Jersey, and Dover Air Force Base in my home State of Delaware. While the tremendous work of our law enforcement community prevented these attacks from taking place, this case serves as a clear reminder that terrorists are intent on attacking us wherever we are vulnerable.

One of our greatest vulnerabilities remains our mass transit systems, which move millions of people every year. In fact, terrorists are increasingly targeting rail and transit systems throughout the world, and the recent bombings in India, London and Madrid are clear evidence of this dangerous trend.

While the concept of rail security is relatively new here at home, security officials in Europe and Asia have decades of experience with terrorist attacks, and I have long believed in the importance of leveraging this experience to improve our own system.

In 2003, I asked the General Accountability Office to undertake an in-depth study of foreign rail security practices. Over the course of several months, the GAO team visited 13 different foreign rail systems, and its subsequent report identified several innovative measures to secure rail systems, many of which are currently being used in the United States.

Most significantly, however, the GAO report identified four important foreign rail security practices that are not currently being used to any great extent in the United States.

First, the report found that other nations had improved the vigilance of their security staff by performing daily unannounced events, known as covert testing, to gauge responsiveness to incidents such as suspicious packages or open emergency doors.

Similarly, two of the 13 foreign operators interviewed by GAO also reported success using some form of random screening to search passengers and baggage for bombs and other suspicious materials. This practice has been used sporadically in the U.S., including in New York City following the 2005 London bombings, but it has never been implemented for any continuous period of time.

The GAO also noted that many foreign governments maintain a national clearinghouse on security technologies and best practices. Such a government-sponsored database would allow rail operators to have one central source of information on the merits of rail security technology, like chemical sensors and surveillance equipment.

Finally, while GAO noted that the Department of Transportation has taken steps to encourage rail operators to consider security when renovating or constructing facilities, many foreign operators are still far more advanced when it comes to incorporating aspects of security into infrastructure design.

For example, this photograph of the London Underground demonstrates several security upgrades, such as vending machines with sloped tops to reduce the likelihood of a bomb being placed there, clear trash bins and netting throughout the station to prevent objects from being left in recessed areas. As you can see, the London stations are also designed to provide security staff with clear lines of sight to all areas of the station, including underneath benches and ticket machines.

The British Government has praised these measures for deterring terrorist attacks, and in one incident, their security cameras recorded IRA terrorists attempting to place an explosive device inside a station. According to London officials, due to infrastructure design improvements, the terrorists were deterred when they could not find a suitable location to hide the device inside the station.

While the GAO acknowledged that deploying these four practices in this country may be difficult, in fact random screening may pose many challenges, it is clear that these foreign security techniques deserve greater consideration.

Therefore, the amendment I am offering today would take steps to improve rail and transit security by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to study the cost and feasibility of implementing these practices and submit a report making recommendations to the Homeland Security and Transportation Committees within 1 year of enactment.

Mr. Chairman, recent attacks on rail and transit throughout the world underscore the importance of acting now to upgrade security here at home. My amendment will make certain that we are knowledgable and consider all available options when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of our rail system.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, let me just close by thanking those on the other side who have spoken in favor of the amendment and for their support of it. I truly believe that this is a small but a very significant step perhaps in preventing terrorism in mass transit in the United States. It is the reason I hope we all can support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, which will provide needed assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies and make changes to Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes against people for no other reason than their perceived or actual race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

Hate crimes are alarmingly prevalent and threaten the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. While State and local governments will maintain principal responsibility, an expanded Federal role in investigating and prosecuting serious forms of hate crimes is critical in targeting and preventing hate crime in our Nation. The measure importantly applies only to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge free speech in any way. In fact, it explicitly states: ``Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.''

H.R. 1592 is supported by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1592.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. While I appreciate the Rules Committee making in order several of the proposed amendments, including an amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia to create a State demonstration program that allows up to eight States to coordinate Head Start with other State-run early childhood development programs, this rule unfortunately limits improving the Head Start Act further by not allowing for debate on several Republican amendments.

Although I oppose this rule, I do support the underlying bill, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 to reauthorize the Head Start program. This legislation improves the Head Start Act by emphasizing that every child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance possible to succeed.

We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Students who attend Head Start programs generally start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms in school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost 1 million Head Start students across almost all of the Nation.

Towards the goal of closing the readiness gap, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its comprehensive nature. The bill improves the academic focus of the program by establishing new quality standards that ensure enrolled children develop and demonstrate language skills; prereading knowledge, including an interest in and an appreciation of books, reading and writing either alone or with others; premathematics knowledge, such as recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive abilities related to academic achievement; and social development important for environments constructive for child development, early learning and school success.

The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 builds upon the reforms of previous reauthorizations of Head Start, as well as the requirements of the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, and the vision of President Bush and Secretary Leavitt. We all want to do what is best for our children, and I truly believe the underlying bill does that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for his kind words and for yielding. I also obviously thank Mr. Miller and Mr. Kildee for their work on this, and Ms. Woolsey, who has worked on it before with me. And I am pleased to be able to be here.

I support the legislation before us today which will reauthorize the Head Start program. And like almost every other Member of this body, I believe strongly in the benefits of this program. I trust that H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act, will improve Head Start by emphasizing that every child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance possible to succeed.

In 1965, Head Start was created to give economically disadvantaged children access to the same educational, health, nutritional, social and other services that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The goal of the program was, as it remains today, to provide children a solid foundation that will prepare them for success in school and later in life.

As the centerpiece of the Federal Government's efforts to support quality early childhood education for our Nation's most disadvantaged youth, Head Start has served nearly 20 million low-income children and their families. Currently Head Start serves over 900,000 children every day and has over 1,600 grantees across the United States. In my home State of Delaware, Head Start programs serve over 2,000 children, with over 800 additional 3- and 4-year-olds receiving assistance through State government funding.

We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Students who attend Head Start programs do start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds who do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms of school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost a million Head Start students across the Nation.

Toward the goal of closing the readiness gap, the Improving Head Start Act strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its comprehensive nature that is imperative to its success. The bill improves the academic focus of the program by establishing new quality standards that ensure enrolled children develop and demonstrate language skills; prereading knowledge, including an interest in and appreciation of books, reading and writing; premathematics knowledge, such as recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive abilities related to academic achievement; and social development important for environments constructive for child development, early learning and school success.

Research consistently demonstrates a link between the learning potential of children and the level of education and training of classroom teachers. For that reason, we improve the quality of teachers in Head Start classrooms by requiring that in time 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide must have a baccalaureate degree.

As I am sure some of my colleagues know, this bill does not include a proposed State demonstration project, which was incorporated into the legislation the House passed in 2003. I believe strongly, however, in the policy goals of increased coordination and integration that were and continue to be at the heart of efforts to remove barriers and prevent collaboration between Head Start and successful State and local early childhood initiatives. I believe the proposal to be offered by Tom Price of Georgia would foster integration among quality early childhood programs, and plan on supporting Mr. Price's amendment.

About 40 States, including Delaware, have established some form of early

childhood education, because States recognize that these services can make a real difference in preparing children for a successful future. Various local initiatives have also been launched, and today, disadvantaged children and families have access to programs and services from a wide range of sources.

Some of these programs rival or exceed the quality of Head Start, while others fall short. Head Start is no longer the only option for early childhood education, and we must ensure that all children are receiving the same quality education. In this new era, Head Start should be working toward integrating service with other school readiness programs not competing against them. Where we previously would have allowed no more than eight States to improve Head Start coordination with State and local efforts, this bill will ensure programs in all 50 States are able to increase collaboration.

We are encouraging Head Start grantees to align their academics with State-developed K-12 academic content standards, as well as to have a more active partnership with local school districts that serve the same communities. This will help to facilitate a smooth transition to kindergarten for their students.

Finally, we are asking early childhood providers in the State, including Head Start, preschool and child care, to come together to identify ways to integrate school readiness initiatives across the State.

As I have said, I believe strongly in the Head Start program, particularly because of how the program helps children later in their lives. Despite these stories, we have also heard many stories of programs in which funds were being diverted away from this purpose.

In 2005, the GAO released a report that warned the financial control system in the Federal Head Start early childhood program is flawed and failing to prevent multimillion-dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children, taxpayers and law-abiding Head Start operators. The GAO made some helpful recommendations on how we can strengthen the oversight structure to prevent abuses and protect good grantees. They recommended that increased competition in the program could help weed out poorly performing grantees and ensure high-quality services are available to children and families.

In response to the GAO's recommendations of how to eliminate financial mismanagement, we are increasing the competitive nature of the current program. The competition requirements in the Improving Head Start Act will help to alleviate these problems, but, more importantly, will drive program improvement across the board. Program improvements will ultimately help thousands of children nationwide, which should always be our goal.

As I said at the outset, Head Start is an important and very popular program. The importance of early childhood education services cannot be overstated. I believe strongly that the reforms sought in H.R. 1429 will go a long way to institute needed reforms in an already successful program.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I thank all those who worked on this, including the staff, and I look forward to the passage of the legislation today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the wonderful Representative from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, we are about to pursue I think a dozen amendments here. All of us had a chance to work on this, had a chance to look at it. I think some of them are very good amendments. I think some are relatively neutral. I think some are maybe a little detrimental to the bill.

I just hope that everybody will listen carefully to the amendments and will not end up being a party vote necessarily and we do what is in the best interests of these children that we have talked about so frequently in the last hour or so.

There is real significance to some of these amendments. I think it is very, very important that we understand the context of them.

I would just like to also finally say at the end that, in my judgment, if you look at any aspect of Head Start that this underlying legislation basically improves the opportunity for young children who are within the parameters of the Head Start program, and I hope that all of us will be supportive of that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller, but I disagree with him on his basic premise here.

I do believe that the Governors of this country, which I had the chance to be one, seems eons ago now, but a few years ago, have a tremendous and strong interest in the children of their States and in the education of those children.

I also believe that in the time since Head Start was created, that many of these Governors have put together prekindergarten, kindergarten, early childhood programs. I think they are ready to move forward with this. I think in many instances they have been competitive with, if not even ahead of, Head Start. We basically backed off from what the White House proposed originally, which is to give all 50 States the option to do this, to a pilot program of eight States.

There are requirements that those eight States match these funds, in fact, put in extra money in order to be able to enter into this program of dealing with the Head Start-type programs. The State demo would be limited to States with a demonstrated investment in early childhood education and established existing preschool system.

You can't just jump into this and take the money or whatever. You have to show you are ready for it, and that you are ready to do it, and you are ready to put the money into it. I believe strongly that those States should be afforded the opportunity. I actually think the competition with some of the Head Start providers would be positive in terms of developing the opportunity for young children.

I would hope that everybody would stop for a moment and take time for a moment to listen to this amendment and the arguments pro and con before votes are cast on it. I believe Mr. Price has demonstrated through Georgia, as well as other States, that this is something which could be beneficial to the children, which is really what this is all about, hopefully helping those children in poverty so that they could move ahead.

I hope everybody will support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Spending bill.

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a version of this legislation that included billions of dollars in non-emergency spending and numerous provisions relating to troop withdrawal that were not requested by the Administration or our military leaders. The conference agreement before us today endorses these extraneous provisions, and as a

result the President has made clear he will veto this bill.

As our Nation continues to debate the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq, some of my colleagues have argued that Congress should mandate a hard deadline for the redeployment of U.S. troops. While I believe that Congress has an important role to play in this debate, such crucial decisions should not be made without substantial input from our military and foreign policy leaders. I have disagreed with many aspects of our strategy in Iraq, but I feel strongly that requiring an arbitrary date for troop withdrawal would endanger our soldiers and undermine efforts to maintain stability in the Middle East.

Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to unite around a strategy that funds our troops and supports an effective way forward in Iraq. We cannot afford to waste precious moments arguing over political objectives and pork barrel spending projects, such as those included in this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill and I call upon my colleagues to dispense with the political rhetoric and get to work immediately on passing a bipartisan emergency supplemental spending bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1257, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which seeks to ensure that shareholders have a say in their company's executive compensation and disclosures.

Let me just say that I agree with both the speakers on the other side so far. There is a problem with CEO and other high-level compensation in the United States. I happen to disagree with the solution which is offered by this legislation. In fact, I would urge that this solution probably will not be a solution. I would like to go through that if I could.

In July 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, adopted a package of rules designed to enhance the transparency of proxy compensation disclosure for CEOs, CFOs and the other three highest paid executive officers and directors, the first major reform since 1992. These new disclosure

requirements are being implemented for the first time and are a major step forward in promoting transparency and arming shareholders with detailed information on how executives are being paid. Therefore, we are attempting to legislate in this area before there is any evidence to suggest that the current SEC robust disclosure requirements are not working.

The bill before us intends to prevent excessive executive compensation. Yet, at a Financial Services Committee hearing on March 8, all six witnesses agreed that a better way to prevent unmerited pay would be to require that publicly traded corporations adopt majority voting policies for the election of board members. At the present time, more than 150 stockholder proposals relating to majority voting have been filed, and more than half of the companies in the S&P 500 have some form of majority voting policy in place. Furthermore, company organization and structure is traditionally governed by State law, while Federal securities laws generally govern the disclosure of information to investors.

In my home State of Delaware, corporate laws are already providing shareholders with majority votes. Majority voting enables stockholders to more easily unseat directors they believe have made poor judgments. The law enables stockholders to focus on compensation committee members in particular if they so choose.

In addition, compensation for executives of publicly owned companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange is determined by a compensation committee that is composed of totally independent directors.

Clearly, the market and States are active in working in this area. H.R. 1257 intends to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation. However, public company equity is overwhelmingly in the hands of intermediaries like retirement plans and mutual funds that manage the economic interests on behalf of others. Therefore, the actual shareholder is already two steps removed from the holders of the true economic interests in the company.

In addition, intermediaries often rely on advice, sellers like the Institutional Shareholder Services, ISS, when voting on company proxies. Consultants such as the ISS are often criticized for their particular biases and their lack of transparency in their decision- making.

It greatly worries me that this bill could set a precedent of giving activist institutional investors who may have their own political and social agendas unrelated to the financial wealth of the companies more influence.

This legislation presents a counterproductive change to an American approach to corporate governance that, while not perfect, has produced better results for stockholders than any other financial system in the world. I have an article written by Secretary Robert Reich about this, in which he, too, opposes the changes that are being proposed here.

He indicates, ``House Democrats are now working on legislation to give shareholders the right to have more say over pay.'' And that is a growing consensus, but he says it is wrong. Shareholders won't constrain the growth of CEO pay because most shareholders don't care about it. The vast majority own their shares through mutual funds and pension funds and don't know which companies they are invested in at any given moment. Then he says later, ``Depending on shareholders to rein in CEO pay is like relying on gamblers to rein in the owners of Las Vegas casinos.''

That is my concern with this. While we have identified the problem, the solution which has been identified in this legislation is not the right solution. The SEC recently enacted substantial new disclosure requirements, as I indicated, governing executive compensation to ensure transparent compensation packages, and these requirements should be given time to take effect. Disclosure is a vital component of our financial system, which increases investor confidence, promotes market discipline, encourages fairness in the U.S. markets and enables more informed decision-making by investors.

I believe there are many unintended consequences associated with the legislation before us today. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing this legislation.

Reclaiming my time.

In response to Chairman Frank, I would just say, he is correct. We have not had that debate, by the way, on the progressive income tax rate. However, he opposes everything with respect to this legislation, leading up to that little squib at the end as to how he would fix that particular problem.

I personally think, as I have outlined here, there are many solutions to this: what the SEC has done, the majority election of directors, what the various States are doing and where this problem should be handled. For that reason, I would encourage us to look at a different method of addressing what you have identified, in my judgment a very real problem.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, it is with Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Naamans Little League. By providing a positive outlet for children, this organization has played a vital role in shaping young leaders in my home state of Delaware.

After it was founded in 1957, the organization has grown rapidly because of its efficient organization and the valuable service it provides to the community: uniting children with sports. While it began with only 60 boys on 4 baseball teams, Naamans Little League now has over 500 players on 42 teams and has formed both a Tee Ball League and a Senior League.

I was fortunate enough to celebrate with the League after they participated in the Little League World Championship. This opportunity further convinced me that their significance within the community cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Their efforts have allowed countless people to understand and enjoy the benefits of physical activity, team work, sportsmanship, and responsibility. After spending just a short while at the celebration, it became very clear to me that this organization has a profoundly far reaching impact, shaping individuals, friendships, families, and communities.

I am pleased to announce that a flag will be flown over the capital in honor of the Naamans Little League's 50th anniversary. I commend this great organization for their immeasurable contributions to Delaware and wish them all the best on this momentous anniversary.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Aretha E. Morton for being appointed as State Bishop for my home state of Delaware in 2006.

This great honor has been bestowed upon her due to her long-standing dedication to the Baptist church. I congratulate Bishop Aretha E. Morton on an outstanding career in ministry. She began her career by singing and recording in several different Gospel groups. By

the age of twenty-one, she made the decision to commit her life to the ministry and preached her first trial sermon. Her hard work as a preacher was acknowledged in 1983, when she became the pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church, making her the first female Baptist Pastor in the State of Delaware. Ten years later, she was given another great honor when the Wilmington Fire Department appointed her as Chaplain for the Wilmington Fire Department. This honor made her the first woman and the first African American Fire Chaplain.

In 1995, she connected her church with the Full Gospel Church Fellowship. This church, now named the Tabernacle Full Gospel Baptist Church, has become the largest affiliate church of its kind in the Delaware area. In 2002, she was named the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship's District Overseer of the Year. Her success in ministry continued when she became one of the first female bishops in the Full Gospel Church Fellowship International. Fellow clergy refer to her as ``Mother'' and in September of 2005 she was even listed on Gospel Today's ``World's Most Loved Pastors'' List, illustrating her respected, humble and revered reputation.

After over 40 years of bringing her love, talents, and enthusiasm to the Baptist ministry, she was appointed Bishop of the Baptist Church for the State of Delaware. I can think of no candidate more deserving of our recognition and praise than Bishop Aretha E. Morton. I congratulate Bishop Morton on an exceptional career of service and dedication.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise to offer an important amendment to the legislation before us today.

As many of my colleagues have noted, terrorists are increasingly targeting rail and transit systems throughout the world. The recent bombings in India, London and Madrid are clear evidence of this dangerous trend.

While the concept of rail security is relatively new here at home, security officials in Europe and Asia have decades of experience with terrorist attacks, and I have long believed in the importance of leveraging this experience to improve our own system.

In 2003, I asked the Government Accountability Office to undertake an in-depth study of foreign rail security practices. Over the course of several months, a GAO team visited 13 different foreign rail systems, and a subsequent report identified many innovative measures to secure rail systems, many of which are currently being used in the U.S.

Most significantly, however, the GAO report identified four important foreign rail security practices that are not currently being used to any great extent in the United States.

First, the report found that other nations have improved the vigilance of their security staff by performing daily unannounced events, known as covert testing, to gauge responsiveness to incidents such as suspicious packages or open emergency doors.

Similarly, two of the thirteen foreign operators interviewed by GAO also reported success using some form of random screening to search passengers and baggage for bombs and other suspicious materials. This practice has been used sporadically in the U.S., including in New York City following in the 2005 London bombings, but has never been implemented for any continuous period of time.

The GAO also noted that many foreign governments maintain a national clearinghouse on security technologies and best practices. Such a government-sponsored database would allow rail operators to have one central source of information on the merits of rail security technology, like chemical sensors and surveillance equipment.

Finally, while GAO noted that the Department of Transportation has taken steps to encourage rail operators to consider security when renovating or constructing facilities, many foreign operators are still far more advanced when it comes to incorporating aspects of security into infrastructure design.

For example, this photograph here to my left of the London Underground demonstrates several security upgrades, such as vending machines with sloped tops to reduce the likelihood of a bomb being placed there, clear trash bins, and netting throughout the station to prevent objects from being left in recessed areas. As you can see, the London stations are also designed to provide security staff with clear lines of sight to all areas of the station, including underneath benches and ticket machines.

The British government has praised these measures for deterring terrorist attacks. In one incident their security cameras recorded IRA terrorists attempting to place an explosive device inside a station. According to London officials, due to infrastructure design and improvements, the terrorists were deterred when they could not find a suitable location to hide the device inside the station.

While the GAO acknowledged that deploying these four practices in this

country may be difficult, in fact, random screening may pose many challenges, it is clear that these foreign security techniques deserve greater consideration. Therefore, the amendment I am offering today would take steps to improve rail and transit security by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to study the cost and feasibility of implementing these practices and submit a report making recommendations to the Homeland Security Committee and Transportation Committee within one year of enactment.

Mr. Chairman, recent attacks on rail and transit throughout the world underscores the importance of acting now to upgrade security here at home. My amendment will make certain that we are knowledgeable and consider all available options when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of our rail system.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will just take a moment.

First, let me first thank very much the distinguished Congresswoman from Texas for her very kind words about the amendment. I am a strong believer, as you have indicated as well, that when there are good ideas out there that we should borrow these ideas. I believe this is something we should do.

I don't mean to burden Homeland Security with studies, but to me this is a relatively simple study matter and something which I think will ultimately provide greater safety to people in this country.

Hopefully, all can support this amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Julian H. ``Pete'' Booker for receiving the 2007 New Castle County Chamber of Commerce Wallace M. Johnson Community Service Award. This great honor has been bestowed upon Mr. Booker for his commendable efforts to reduce teen automobile crashes in my home state of Delaware as well as for his dedication to numerous other philanthropic causes.

Julian, better known as Pete, created Delaware's SMARTDRlVE program, which educates high school students about safe driving techniques. Through this program nearly a dozen local agencies are partnered with more than two dozen high schools in order to ensure young drivers are able to safely handle the challenges of being behind the wheel. The program has achieved great success and has largely impacted many people in Delaware. This success was recognized in 2006 when the program received a national safety award.

Pete is currently finishing his second three-year term on the United Way of Delaware's Board of Directors, where he has volunteered since 1994. His talents and tireless dedication to such a worthy cause have facilitated and enhanced much needed programs in Delaware communities.

Pete further demonstrates commitment to his community by volunteering a great deal of time and resources to numerous other charities. The American Red Cross of the Delmarva Peninsula, the Delaware Association of Non-Profit Agencies, and Catholic Charities are but a few causes he has volunteered to assist.

Pete has also utilized his professional success to further the many causes he champions. As the president and CEO of Delmarva Broadcasting Company, he is able to donate generous portions of air-time to campaign thank-you ads as well as underwrite a portion of United Way's public events. The state of Delaware is greatly indebted to Mr. Booker for his selfless efforts. He has created a charitable legacy that has, and will continue to, touch many. I would like to congratulate Pete for receiving the Wallace M. Johnson Community Service Award, I cannot think of a more deserving recipient.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Christine Carzo for receiving the 2007 New Castle County Chamber of Commerce William V. Roth Citizenship Award. I can think of no one more deserving of this prestigious

award which was created in honor of the late Senator Roth.

During her academic career at St. Elizabeth's High School, Christine has continually distinguished herself as a stellar student. Hard work and dedication paid off during her freshman year when she received the second highest GPA in her class. Since then she has been inducted into the National Honor Society, which she was secretary of for the 2006-07 school year. Christine is also a National Merit Commended Scholar and ranks third in her class.

While remaining committed to her academics, Christine has also been able to pursue a rich variety of extracurricular activities. She has spent over 185 hours performing charitable services for her community, many of which were at the Ronald McDonald House of Delaware. Christine is copy editor of her high school year book in addition to participating in mock trials, playing volleyball, and, interestingly enough, playing bass guitar in a local band.

I commend this extraordinary young women for her many great accomplishments. She serves as an example to others and an asset to our community. I would like to congratulate her for receiving the William V. Roth Citizenship Award and wish her the best of luck in the future.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I rise in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Spending bill.

Earlier this year, our military submitted a request to Congress for emergency funding to protect our brave soldiers, and it is our duty to respond to this important request in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today includes billions of dollars in non- emergency spending and numerous provisions relating to troop withdrawal not requested by the Administration, which have the potential to delay passage of this vital emergency funding.

Much of the extra spending included in this bill will go to wasteful pork barrel projects and non-emergency subsidy programs, including millions of dollars for spinach farmers in California and peanut storage in Georgia. While I have strongly supported some of the policy provisions added to this bill, such as the minimum wage increase and expanded funding for homeland security, I am concerned that the Democratic leadership is attempting to hold critical resources for our soldiers in limbo in order to force political votes.

Our military leaders on the ground in Iraq have warned that disruptive changes in day-to-day operations will occur without immediate supplemental funding. In fact, the acting Secretary of the Army recently stated that if it does not receive additional funding by the end of April, the military will be forced to start making difficult decisions, such as postponing repairs on equipment. Sadly, rather than providing our military with the tools it has requested, the Democratic leadership is forcing a political agenda, which is certain to lead to an impasse with the Administration and further delay this important funding.

I have disagreed with many aspects of our strategy in Iraq, and I have worked hard to convince our government to change its course in the region and begin pursuing robust diplomacy to end the conflict. Indeed, I am hopeful that my efforts, and those of my colleagues, have prompted the Administration to begin engaging in an intense diplomatic initiative to establish peace and stability, so that our troops may return home to their families. However, when it comes to funding for our soldiers who are serving in harm's way, it is not appropriate for Congress to set arbitrary timelines for withdrawal or condition military resources based on partisan objectives. It is important that our strategy in Iraq include goals for bringing the troops home, but excluding the judgment of U.S. commanders and mandating an exact deadline for withdrawal--regardless of the situation on the ground-- would endanger our brave soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, the President has pledged to veto this legislation due to the inclusion of non-emergency spending and policy provisions. We can not afford to waste precious time arguing over disingenuous political proposals and extraneous pork barrel spending projects. I intend to vote against this bill and I will adamantly oppose any attempts to play politics with funding for our soldiers.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to five exemplary women as they are inducted into the Hall of Fame of Delaware Women. Sujata Kumari Bhatia, Carolyn S. Burger, Liane M. Sorenson, Shirley M. Tarrant, and Val Whiting all possess extraordinary abilities which they have used to achieve great things and better their communities. Each inductee is truly deserving of this high distinction for the profound impact they have made not only upon Delaware, but the entire country.

Sujata Kumari Bhatia

To achieve her goals, Dr. Bhatia pursued a rigorous academic career. In only four years at the University of Delaware, she obtained three bachelors degrees in the fields of biology, biochemistry and chemical engineering in addition to a master's degree in chemical engineering. She then went on to earn both her MD and PhD at the University of Pennsylvania. Since her graduation, the Unversity of Delaware has presented her with the 1999 Woman of Promise award as well as the 2006 Presidential Citation for Outstanding Achievement. She has also been invited to attend several symposiums for the Nation's top engineers.

With advanced training in both the fields of engineering and medicine, Dr. Bhatia has positioned herself to bring a great deal of innovation to the world of biomedical materials. She currently works for DuPont Central Research and Development as the only physician- scientist. She is actively putting her unique expertise to work by spearheading a project to develop a surgical sealant which will greatly advance the way doctors care for wounds.

Beyond her worthwhile professional endeavors, Dr. Bhatia has also dedicated herself to helping the community. By mentoring young women at the University of Delaware's Engineering Department and also the Charter School of Wilmington, she positively impacts the engineering field as a whole, as well as individual lives. She further demonstrates her charitable spirit and leadership skills by serving on the Board of Directors of the University of Delaware Engineering Alumni Association, the Delaware Governor's Council on Lifestyle and Fitness, and the Delaware section of the American Chemical Society. On top of all this she is still able to find time and energy to donate to other causes such as the Ronald McDonald House, the Salvation Army, American Heart Association and the Special Olympics to name only a few.

Carolyn S. Burger

Carolyn S. Burger is a pioneer in the telecommunications industry. Her outstanding work ethic, effective managerial and interpersonal skills, intelligence, and perseverance have enabled her to break through the many barriers that stood in her way.

After graduating from Wilson College, Ms. Burger quickly ascended the ranks at the former Bell-Atlantic Company. She was the first woman in every management position she held at the company. She attained her goals by delivering quality, bottom-line results while still treating her employees and co-workers with the utmost respect. Ms. Burger became the first woman in the United States to lead a telecommunications company when she was promoted to President and CEO of Bell Atlantic Delaware. In this position she achieved a great deal. She is well known for bringing about legislative reform in the Delaware General Assembly which provided customers with more competitive rates. She retired from the company in 1996, leaving behind an unparalleled legacy.

Ms. Burger utilizes her strong leadership skills to effect change in the community. She champions many important issues as well as other charitable causes. She is the cofounder of ``Swinging with a Star'' golf tournament, which facilitates networking among women in business and raises money for girls prqgrams throughout the state of Delaware. Her philanthropic spirit and business prowess has secured a healthy financial future for the Delaware Art Museum and helped fund programs which are invaluable to the state of Delaware.

Liane Mc Dowell Sorenson

Throughout her prolific career, Liane Sorenson has actively demonstrated her deep commitment to women, children and families. As the Director of Women's Affairs at the University of Delaware, she championed issues relating to date rape and gender-based harassment. In addition to establishing Sexual Assault Awareness Week at the University, she lobbied to improve procedures for handling reports of rape and harassment.

A passion for public service brought her to the State Senate, where she is now a Senator and the Minority Whip. She has proven herself to be a true leader by advancing important legislative issues concerning cancer, women's health, historical preservation, and child advocacy. In recognition of her hard work she was awarded the Legislative Award from the Delaware Recreation and Parks Society in 2001.

While maintaining a busy work schedule, Senator Sorenson still finds time to give back to the community. She is Chair of the Advisory Board of the Delaware Breast Cancer Coalition, a founding member and past President of the Hockessin Historical Society, and a member of the Newark Symphony Orchestra, to name only some of the ways she gets involved. She has received many awards for her efforts including ones from the Delaware Humanities Forum and the Newark Branch of the NAACP.

Shirley M. Tarrant

Shirley M. Tarrant was the founder and president of the Suburban County Hospital Task Force. In this role she tirelessly fought to bring a much needed hospital to the Newark Delaware area. After seven years of overcoming obstacles, Shirley's dream was realized when Christiana Hospital finally came to be.

Ms. Tarrant is passionate in whatever she does. On top of her devotion to bringing quality healthcare facilities to Delawareans, Ms. Tarrant is active within the community. When the University of Delaware's medical technology program was almost terminated, Ms. Tarrant played a pivotal role in saving it. She was the Founder and First President of the Newark Girls Club, the Chairperson and member of the Delaware Health Facilities Authority, and the Secretary of the University of Delaware Alumni Association among a long list of other activities.

On many occasions Ms. Tarrant has been recognized for her achievements. Delaware Today Magazine named her one of the 30 people who ``changed Delaware''. She was also named the University of Delaware's Most Outstanding Alumnus in 1985. She has received the Dr. Wallace M. Johnson Community Service Award in addition to many other awards commending her outstanding accomplishments.

Val Whiting

Val Whiting is an accomplished athlete, scholar, and leader in the Delaware community. Her basketball career took off when she was in high school and played in many state championships. At Stanford University, she led her team to two NCAA Championships and was named Pac-10 Conference Player of the Year. Ms. Whiting was an alternate to the 1995 National Team, which took the gold medal at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Recently both ESPN and the NCAA recognized Ms. Whiting as one of the ``Top 25 NCAA Players of the Past 25 Years.''

Although she was accepted to medical school, Ms. Whiting pursued her athletic dreams of playing professional basketball. After playing abroad in Italy, Brazil and elsewhere, she returned to the United States to play in the WNBA for the Detroit Shock and then the Minnesota Lynx. She is now one of a few African-American women trainers in the state of Delaware.

Ms. Whiting is an active leader in the Delaware community. She works to motivate young people to make good decisions and lead successful lives. She is a spokesperson for AIDS Delaware in addition to volunteering for the Police Athletic League and serving on the Board of Directors of Girls Inc. She founded GAMESHAPE, a life skills program for young girls, as well as the Ms. Whiting Economic Literacy League for girls. For her efforts she has received awards from the WNBA, Wilmington Mayor James Baker, the Police Athletic League and many others.

I cannot applaud the accomplishments of these five women enough. Their ceaseless commitment to their personal goals as well as those of the broader community is testament

to their rich quality of character. They are great role models for the people of Delaware and I would like to commend their outstanding accomplishments. I wish them all the best as they accept the well- deserved honor of being inducted into the Hall of Fame of Delaware Women.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise to offer myself a simple but much needed amendment to the legislation before us. According to a 2006 report by the Office of Government Ethics, many Federal agencies have become increasingly reliant on non government employees to work closely with government personnel and provide advice on important procurement and spending issues.

For example, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, or FFRDCs, as they are commonly known, are in most cases financed exclusively by the agency of the Federal Government and provides services similar to the duties of the Government Accountability Office.

There are currently 36 of these centers, which are normally affiliated with an industrial firm, a university or a nonprofit institution that contracts with the Pentagon, Homeland Security, Department of Energy and other Federal agencies to provide decisionmakers with recommendations on procurement policy and important issues that steer billions in taxpayer dollars.

In fiscal year 2000, FFRDCs received over $6 billion in Federal funding for their services, yet they are not considered to be Federal employees. Beyond just FFRDCs, other private advisers are increasingly being used to provide critical guidance and recommendations.

In fact, some of the most secret and inherently governmental jobs, including spending decisions and budget preparation at the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security, are increasingly contracted out. Because private advisers and government employees play under different rules, our current conflict of interest laws do not apply to nongovernment workers serving in quasi-governmental controls.

In fact, the Office of Government Ethics has determined that current law prohibits government employees from making recommendations on matters where they have a financial conflict of interest. But it does not presently apply to FFRDC personnel or the private advisers who sit right next to those employees making high-level decisions that involve billions in taxpayer dollars.

While there is no doubt that the majority of these nongovernment advisers are dedicated individuals with highly specialized skills, there is purely a need to prevent financial conflicts of interest from impacting our government's important spending priorities.

In fact, there have been reported incidents in which the advice of private advisers may have been tainted by personal conflicts of interest. In one case, an FFRDC contradicted government auditors, including the Government Accountability Office, and advised the Pentagon to move forward with a risky fighter jet program.

As it turned out, the program suffered costly setbacks, eventually spending billions more than originally planned. It was later discovered that the President of the FFRDC that recommended the program had financial ties, which may have skewed their recommendations.

My amendment would simply require the Office of Government Ethics to study this issue and submit a report to Congress within 180 days on recommendations for requiring nongovernment personnel who serve in an advisory role to the government to comply with personal financial conflict of interest regulations, such as those that currently apply to Federal employees.

This is obviously a very complicated issue, but I firmly believe that it is Congress' responsibility to make certain that ethical people are providing sound advice when it comes to crucial government decisions regarding procurement and spending.

I believe this amendment will help us better understand whether there is a need for such provisions and ensure that our government maximizes its return on investment at the best value for the taxpayer.

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

I very much appreciate the support of the distinguished gentleman from California. I think that is significant.

Mr. Chairman, I do feel this is an area that we should look into. I am not enough of an expert to specifically recommend how to do it. That is why we are asking for the study in 180 days. There is potential for conflict here, and we are dealing with very, very large sums of money, and in my judgment, as part of a lot that we are doing this year in bringing in everybody with governmental basis in terms of making decisions, I think it's a very good idea that we do this.

I appreciate his support. I hope the amendment will eventually lead to the best rules and regulations possible with respect to conflicts of interest as far as the future is concerned and the best interests of the country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Naamans Little League. By providing a positive outlet for children, this organization has played a vital role in shaping young leaders in my home State of Delaware.

After it was founded in 1957, the organization has grown rapidly because of its efficient organization and the valuable service it provides to the community: uniting children with sports. While it began with only 60 boys on 4 baseball teams, Naamans Little League now has over 500 players on 42 teams and has formed both a Tee Ball League and a Senior League.

I was fortunate enough to celebrate with the League after they won the Little League World Championship. This opportunity further convinced me that their significance within the community cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Their efforts have allowed countless people to understand and enjoy the benefits of physical activity, teamwork, sportsmanship, and responsibility. After spending just a short while at the celebration, it became very clear to me that this organization has a profoundly far reaching impact, shaping individuals, friendships, families, and communities.

I am pleased to announce that a flag will be flown over the capital in honor of the Naamans Little League's 50th anniversary. I commend this great organization for their immeasurable contributions to Delaware and wish them all the best on this momentous anniversary.