Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 749) to amend the Federal Credit Union Act to provide expanded access for persons in the field of membership of a Federal credit union to money order, check cashing, and money transfer services, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 749, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 749, the Expanded Access to Financial Services Act of 2005, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and favorably reported to the House by the Committee on Financial Services.

This bill makes a simple change to the Federal Credit Union Act to allow Federal credit unions to offer check cashing and money transfer services to anyone within their field of membership. H.R. 749 will serve the dual purpose of lowering the cost to consumers of both check cashing and wire transfer products, while providing credit unions the opportunity to establish relationships with individuals who are currently unbanked.

Money transfers by individuals living and working in the U.S. to Latin America are currently estimated at $10 billion annually, and should more than double by 2010.

As the remittance market continues to grow, there becomes a significant danger in depriving customers of low-cost remittance products, thereby driving them to underground service providers that evade regulatory oversight. H.R. 749 will allow credit unions to offer remittance products to individuals who qualify for membership while promoting greater transparency within the remittance market. This improved transparency will enhance the ability for regulators and law enforcement agencies to track wire transfers used for illegal activity. Increasing the ease with which regulators and law enforcement agencies can follow the money trail is consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission on Terrorist Financing.

Allowing Federal credit unions to offer products and services to all consumers within their field of membership would provide further benefits to our economy by allowing credit unions to establish relationships with individuals who are currently ``unbanked.'' Many users of remittance services are recent immigrants and should be empowered with the knowledge and resources necessary to open personal accounts at mainstream financial institutions. Studies indicate that as many as 10 million American households do not have a bank account. Establishing and successfully managing a personal

account with an insured depository institution can lead to greater economic self-sufficiency and long-term financial security. Particularly for low- and moderate-income Americans, opening a checking or savings account can be an important first step in establishing a credit history, which can unlock doors to other financial opportunities.

I believe that this bill is a positive step toward ensuring that millions of unbanked Americans have access to secure, low-cost remittance products, while drawing these same customers into the regulated financial mainstream. I therefore encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 749.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I am very concerned about the process by which terminals for LNG will be selected in this country. Let me say, I support natural gas. I support the use of liquefied natural gas. I understand we need ports. I also understand the nearer they are to the pipeline the better off we are. But the bottom line is that the process that is in this legislation which supplants the existing process, in my judgment, tramples on the rights of the States and the individual communities, as they have indicated in their letters to us, to be able to influence these decisions that are made.

If you read this carefully, you will see that H.R. 6 requires FERC to consult with the State, but it clearly removes the directive that FERC base its decision on community support or opposition, which it does now.

States do a heck of a lot more than consult. At times they can object entirely. There may be problems. In the case of one being located in the Delaware River, New Jersey has some problems with it, in terms of boats being able to turn and environmental issues, whatever it may be. There are a lot of problems across the United States of America.

My judgment is that we are taking absolutely the wrong step by this rather strong measure that turns over to this Federal commission the right to make local decisions. That is something that none of us in the Congress of the United States should endorse.

So for that reason I hope the amendment reverting to where it was before would be accepted.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the chairman of the committee has the right to close? He is the only speaker they have. I am the final speaker.

I yield myself the balance, which I believe is 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, actually the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and I were just discussing this. It is a shame we do not have more time for this amendment. It is a pretty significant amendment. It is complicated, and I have spent a lot of time trying to educate myself as to what the procedures were before and what they are now. It could be a little bit difficult, and there is a court suit pending in California, and obviously we need this. I will be the first to tell my colleagues that.

On the other hand, for the States and the local areas to give up their jurisdiction and their ability to influence this decision, I think would be absolutely wrong.

I have read this statute very carefully. For instance, it says on page 13: ``The term `Federal authorization' means any authorization required under Federal law in order to construct, expand, or operate a liquefaction or gasification natural gas terminal, including such permits, special use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be required, whether issued by a Federal or State agency.''

You are basically taking what has been partially codified and developed by procedure, and you are trying to codify it here in what is a much tighter measure, giving to the energy commission the ability to make the decision and overrule what happens at the State and local levels. That is the problem that I have.

And certainly the chairman may get up and say, Well, that is not quite what it is.

It certainly can be interpreted that way. If we look at this language, it certainly appears to be that way, as far as I am concerned.

They talk about safety inspections. That is after it has already been built. So that does not do us any good as far as the original preparation is concerned.

I think we need to do more than just consult. That is what the State role now becomes; it becomes consulting. And let me tell my colleagues something. This may be more than just the terminals for LNG. This could end up being other things, not in this legislation necessarily, but this commission could reach out and start to deal with energy lines, could start to deal with pipelines and a variety of other things, taking away the local jurisdiction over land.

If we want to protect what happens at our homes, we need to have a process by which we involve the local community, and by involving the local community, we make the right decisions. Yes, we have to make them, but let us not forget the States and the

local communities; and that is what, in my judgment, this legislation would do if we do not amend it.

Support the Castle amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to former Delaware Governor Elbert N. Carvel, lovingly known to most Delawareans as ``Big Bert''. Bert was born in Shelter Island, New York on February 9th, 1910 to loving parents Arnold W. Carvel and Elizabeth Nostrand Carvel.

Bert Carvel graduated from Baltimore Polytechnic Institute in 1928 and the University of Baltimore law school in 1931. After moving to Delaware in 1936, Mr. Carvel began working for the Valliant Fertilizer Company in Laurel. After years of hard work at Valliant Fertilizer, he rose to the position of President and Chairman of the Board.

Soon after rising to prominence in the business community, the 6 foot, 6 inch, gentle giant decided to throw his hat into the political arena. He was elected Lieutenant Governor of Delaware in 1944 and became the 65th Governor of the First State in 1949. He returned to the governorship in 1961 and served out his second term, eventually leaving elected office for good in 1965. As a former Governor myself, I honor and thank Governor Carvel for his major accomplishments while in office.

After leaving office, Governor Carvel remained a fixture around Delaware. His good-natured speeches and humor made him a lively and well-known personality throughout all three counties. He will be remembered for his work with community foundations such as: The March of Dimes, The American Cancer Society, Delaware Wild Lands, the Boy Scouts, Ducks Unlimited, many historical societies throughout Delaware and through his church, St. Philip's Episcopal in Laurel.

Bert Carvel's legacy is one of equal human rights and opportunity; he opposed the death penalty and favored a public accommodations law, civil rights era reform that opened public places to all people, including African-Americans. Bert Carvel was so strong in his convictions that he did not worry about the political and personal price of legislation. He knew what was right and he made it his job to make sure Delaware always did the just thing. He was truly a larger than life statesman who will leave a larger than life legacy for all of us to remember.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a sharp increase in bankruptcies in the past 25 years. In 2003, consumer filings peaked at over 1.6 million filings, a 465 percent increase from 1980. Those who believe credit card companies, mortgage lenders and other financial institutions are bearing the cost of consumers filing for bankruptcy do not understand how business works. These costs will be shifted to American families who are paying the price for this debt, some studies reflect $400 per year in every household, by higher interest rates on their credit cards, auto loans, school loans and mortgages. When the legislation passes today it will be the American families who are the real winners.

This legislation balances the consumer's challenge of debt repayment with the needs of businesses that collect money rightfully owed to them. In an effort to better educate consumers and improve financial literacy, the legislation requires many filers of bankruptcy to attend financial counseling. This change coupled with congressional encouragement for schools to incorporate personal finance curricula in elementary and secondary education programs are both useful methods of curbing future debt. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, which has jurisdiction over K through 12, I feel strongly that educating future spenders can prevent debts incurred as adults.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his years of strong and tenacious support for this legislation and thank him for not giving up on these important, common-sense changes to our bankruptcy system. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record the following remarks from Mr. Arkadi Kuhlmann, CEO of ING DIRECT, in opposition to the bankruptcy reform legislation under consideration. I remain a strong supporter of S. 256; however, I believe Mr. Kuhlmann's statement should be made part of the record.

Statement of Arkadi Kuhlmann, CEO, ING DIRECT

Mr. Speaker, I am Arkadi Kuhlmann, CEO of ING DIRECT, a

federally chartered thrift headquartered in Wilmington,

Delaware. ING DIRECT launched in the U.S. in September 2000

to challenge traditional banking by touting the high

interest, no fee and no minimum Orange Savings Account as its

signature product, with a brand vision to lead Americans back

to saving.

ING DIRECT has since expanded its product line to include

the Orange Mortgage, the Orange Home Equity Line of Credit,

Orange CDs and the Orange Investment Account. With over 2.5

million customers and more than $43 billion in assets, ING

DIRECT is the fourth largest thrift in the U.S.

The House is now considering consumer bankruptcy

legislation that would make major changes to how consumers'

debts and obligations are treated in the bankruptcy process.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony for the

record on this legislation.

Despite the many important and positive changes this bill

would make to our bankruptcy laws, this proposal remains

seriously flawed. One significant oversight is the bill's

failure to consider one of the biggest problems we face in

business today: identity theft.

The Washington Post ran a story recently about a woman

whose identity was stolen, yet her credit card company forced

the fraudster's debt on her by using the arbitration clause

in her card agreement.

The Bankruptcy Bill must address the possibility that

identity theft could lead to financial devastation through no

fault of the person's own. In addition to overlooking the

problem of identity theft, this proposal had additional

shortcomings. It actually encourages further bad lending

decisions by removing an important market discipline--the

possibility of a clean bankruptcy.

Without important changes, millions of consumers, who might

otherwise be savers, will be encouraged into debt by

aggressive credit card and other lending. We believe it is

crucial that a serious study of the connection between credit

card marketing and personal bankruptcy be completed. The bill

as drafted requires such a study. We challenge the Congress

to take a very hard look at the results of the study and

consider further legislation, if necessary.

Another important issue is the Bill's creation of a ``means

test.'' By giving disparate treatment to secured versus

unsecured debt, the law would treat secured creditors even

more favorably than under current rules. We believe the means

test should be applied across the board or not at all.

We at ING DIRECT believe this country is still willing to

give working Americans--the engine of our economy--a second

chance when debt overwhelms them. This bill seriously limits

that second chance.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 256, the ``Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Prevention Act of 2005.''

It has been seven years since we made our first attempt to reform the bankruptcy system in the 105th Congress and thanks to the tireless efforts of Chairman Sensenbrenner's Committee, we can see a real chance for passing a full and comprehensive bill this year.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a sharp increase in bankruptcies over the past 25 years. In 2003, consumer filings peaked at over 1.6 million filings--a 465 percent increase from 1980. Those who believe credit card companies, mortgage lenders and other financial institutions are bearing the costs of consumer's filing for bankruptcy don't understand how business works. American families are paying the price for this debt--some studies reflect $400 per year in every household--by higher interest rates on their credit cards, auto loans, school loans and mortgages. When the legislation before us passes today it will be the American families that are the real winners.

This legislation balances the consumer's challenge of debt repayment with the needs of businesses to collect money rightfully owed to them. In an effort to better educate consumers and improve financial literacy, the legislation requires many filers of bankruptcy to attend financial counseling. This change, coupled with Congressional encouragement for schools to incorporate personal finance curricula in elementary and secondary education programs, are both useful methods of curbing future debt. As Chairman of the Education Reform Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over all K-12 programs, I feel strongly that educating future spenders can prevent debts incurred as adults.

I also support the new requirement for lending institutions, which will now have to take additional steps to ensure consumers fully understand the ramifications of credit spending. Credit card billing statements will now reflect the actual time it would take to repay a full balance at a specified interest rate; contain warnings to alert consumers that paying only the minimum will increase the amount of interest; and list a toll-free number for consumer's to call for an estimate of the time it would take to repay the balance if only the minimum is paid. With these steps, lending institutions can improve their chances of repayment while pro-actively educating consumers of true costs associated with borrowing.

I believe the ``Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act'' reflects fair solutions to minimizing spending abuse, while protecting those with genuine hardship. Relief is still available for low and moderate income families. However, this legislation will end the protection for those who make obvious attempts to abuse their credit. Those who are able to pay their debts--will now be held to those commitments--through means testing. A means test would be used to determine a debtor's eligibility for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, where the majority of debt is excused, or Chapter 13, where a significant portion of debt

must be repaid. Importantly, disabled veterans would be exempt from the means test if their debts occurred primarily as a result of being called to active duty or for homeland defense operations.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this legislation also includes four additional judges for Delaware's bankruptcy court. This increase is long overdue, as the bankruptcy caseloads in Delaware continue to exceed other districts' caseloads for Chapter 11 businesses cases. Last year alone, weighted filings for Delaware judges were 11,789, while the national average was 1,763--in other words, the Delaware caseload was 10 times the national average. The Delaware District tends to have the largest Chapter 11 business cases, often referred to as the ``mega'' Chapter 11 cases which are ``those involving extremely large assets, unusual public interest, a high level of creditor involvement, complex debt, a significant amount of related litigation, or a combination of such factors.'' These are complex cases in which the judicial system in Delaware has built a high level of expertise as well as a sound reputation for fair practices. I am pleased the legislation before us today takes a solid step towards alleviating Delaware's heavily burdened bankruptcy court system.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his years of strong and tenacious support for this legislation and thank him for not giving up on these important, common-sense changes to our bankruptcy system. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, Inc., an organization that has served on the front lines of the battle for fairness in housing. Through their advocacy for equal opportunities in the sale, rental, or leasing of housing, they have made invaluable contributions to my district. On April 4, 2005, Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware will enjoy their 22nd Annual Proclamation Ceremony, marking their continued commitment to a housing environment devoid of discrimination.

For 37 years, millions of Americans have achieved the dream of home ownership under the auspices of the Federal Housing Act. With April 2005 designated as Fair Housing Month, I believe this recognition is especially appropriate, and ask that we continue to follow in the footsteps of this landmark legislation.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I applaud the efforts of Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, Inc. and commend the cause which they hold so dear.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Albert O'Neill Jr. upon his nomination as a Jefferson Award finalist. Mr. O'Neill Jr. is a patient care volunteer with Delaware Hospice and a member of the Delaware Lions Foundation. Mr. O'Neill Jr. is instrumental in collecting donated items and distributing them throughout the world to persons in need.

Since 1998, Mr. O'Neill has donated over 15,000 pairs of shoes and over 1.2 million pounds of donated items. Mr. O'Neill's efforts have meant that thousands of needy people have not gone without.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate Mr. O'Neill Jr. upon his nomination as a finalist for the Jefferson Award. Mr. O'Neill's selflessness serves as an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Audrey Hope-Milton upon her nomination as a Jefferson Award finalist. Ms. Hope-Milton is a volunteer to the Stop the Violence Coalition, as the program administrator for the Playstation Too Mentoring Program. Ms. Hope-Milton is predominately concerned with the health, welfare and safety of young people and takes great care to make sure that they are not overlooked or forgotten.

Ms. Hope-Milton's passion for volunteer work comes from a religious family legacy of working with today's youth. Ms. Hope-Milton's success is a result of her giving back what was given to her. Ms. Hope-Milton's tireless efforts to help young people have touched the lives of many in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate Ms. Hope-Milton upon her nomination as a finalist for the Jefferson Award. Ms. Hope-Milton's selflessness serves as an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Jennifer Crouse upon her nomination as a Jefferson Award finalist. Ms. Crouse is the founder of Fun Packs. Fun Packs are for use by children patients at area hospitals to help young children through difficult times in their lives. In 200I, the program was expanded to include Care Packs, which were distributed to service people who were deployed through the Dover Air Force base. Ms. Crouse has volunteered within the community for more than 10 years, and has logged more than 3,200 volunteer hours.

Ms. Crouse's volunteer efforts have touched the lives of many in our community. Ms. Crouse is a deserving candidate for the Jefferson Award.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate Ms. Crouse upon her nomination as a finalist for the Jefferson Award. Ms. Crouse is truly worthy of this honor.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Robert Brandt upon his nomination as a Jefferson Award finalist. For nearly 19 years, Mr. Brandt has aided Delawareans confronting personal crisis. Mr. Brandt has logged over 8,000 hours of volunteer service and over 3,000 hours as a help line listener.

Mr. Brandt's tireless dedication to the well being of others is an inspiration to all Americans. Mr. Brandt has touched the lives of countless individuals as one of the organizations most committed rape crisis volunteers. He is a most worthy candidate for the Jefferson Award and a truly outstanding Delawarean.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate Mr. Ellison upon his nomination as a finalist for the Jefferson Award. Mr. Brandt's selflessness serves as an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Virginia Lanier Biasotto upon her nomination as a Jefferson Award finalist. Ms. Biasotto is the founder of Reading ASSIST Institute. This institute is a nonprofit organization that trains volunteer tutors to implement a one-on-one help method using scientific research-based instruction for struggling readers. This program is provided at no cost to families or schools.

Beginning in 1980, Ms. Biasotto developed a reading curriculum based on the Orton-Gillingham model, and trained friends at her kitchen table. One sound at a time, one child at a time, the groups persistence offered the education community a way to deal with the challenge of reading difference.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate Ms. Biasotto upon her nomination as a finalist for the Jefferson Award. Ms. Biasotto's determination and drive to educate and empower others serves as an example to us all. She is truly worthy of this honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to disagree with the President's proposal to eliminate federal funding for passenger rail. On February 7, President Bush presented a budget proposal to Congress that contained no funding for Amtrak. As explanation, the provision states: ``With no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy, which would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and the reorganization of the railroad through bankruptcy procedures. Ultimately, a more rational passenger rail system would emerge, with service on routes where there is real ridership demand and support from local governments--such as the Northeast Corridor.''

Last year, Amtrak carried 25 million passengers on 22,000 miles of track with approximately 20,000 employees, including close to 2,000 employees based in my state of Delaware. In addition to operating 300 daily intercity trains, close to 850,000 daily rail commuters throughout the country also depend on operating agreements with Amtrak. While the Administration's goal is apparently to improve passenger rail by shutting it down, I surmise that eliminating federal funding for rail transportation would jeopardize the livelihood, and threaten the safety, of millions of riders and thousands of communities who depend on Amtrak.

No country in the world operates an effective passenger rail system without government subsidies. In fact, countries such as Germany and Japan, which have well-developed passenger rail networks but much smaller populations, invest $3-4 billion annually, over 20 percent of their total transportation spending. In contrast, Amtrak's appropriation of $1.217 billion last year equaled only two percent of the Department of Transportation's $59 billion budget.

Directly, or indirectly, the United States subsidizes all our forms of transportation, with rail receiving the least amount by far. Other modes of transportation operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted infrastructure, and rely on government-supported security, research, and traffic controllers. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration alone received $5.2 billion in federal funding for security this year, yet Amtrak sustains its own security force. Unlike aviation, highways, and transit, there is no dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development.

For fiscal year 2005, the Administration proposed $900 million for Amtrak and budgeted $1.4 billion for each year thereafter. It is apparent that the current proposal to cut funding for passenger rail represents a drastic and dangerous turnaround in the President's policy. Seeking no funds for direct Amtrak expenses and ceding control of the railroad to a bankruptcy trustee, whose sole legal responsibility is to Amtrak's creditors, would put the future of rail travel on very uncertain footing.

Furthermore, the proposed budget provides $360 million to continue commuter rail traffic on the Northeast Corridor, but only after Amtrak ceases operations. As some of my colleagues have recognized, the Administration's proposal anticipates a period during which all Amtrak services, including those on the Northeast Corridor, would by stopped. With over 1,700 trains operating over some portion of the Washington- Boston route each day, states would be devastated if forced to handle the disruption and congestion that terminating Amtrak service would trigger.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, while the President's plan undoubtedly includes some recommendations worth considering, the facts are clear; Amtrak needs federal support to survive, just like highways, ports, and airlines. I am one of many Republicans in Congress eager to improve the safety, efficiency, and ridership of passenger rail. Putting Amtrak on the chopping block directly contradicts this goal. Dozens of reform proposals exist without jeopardizing the viability of Amtrak and they should be openly debated in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act, which will reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)--programs which provide job training for youths, veterans, and seasonal and migrant workers.

For the past six years WIA has offered a ``one-stop delivery system'' through which job-seekers have access to labor market information, job counseling, and job training. In addition, they have access to numerous other federal programs that provide services for job seekers. With facilities in Wilmington, Newark, Dover and Georgetown, the ``one-stop delivery system'' in Delaware has proved to be an efficient tool in training individuals for the workforce.

For example, in Delaware all of our centers are fully equipped with: Internet ready computers, interactive CD-Rom tutorials, fax machine to send resume and cover letters to perspective employers, copy machine, telephone resource center with career manuals including reference books. Delaware also runs an internet site where applicants can post resumes, as well as to search a comprehensive database of job openings. Applicants can also allow Job Scout to search the system for you automatically track wages and trends, training locations and funding available. It also offers bus schedules, links to newspaper classified ads, child care and related information through the family and workplace connection.

The purpose of highlighting the program in Delaware is to provide a real life example of useful it is to have services in one central place. The bill before us today builds on the efficiency of the ``one- stop delivery'' model by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy, eliminating duplication, strengthening resource allocation, and improving accountability. I am pleased that we are able to make reforms that build upon successes, and that will ultimately enhance the ability of adults to access services that lead to employment.

I would also like to briefly touch upon the services that are provided for youth under this

bill. Under this legislation youth between the ages of 16 and 24 are eligible for a variety of services geared toward graduating high school or gaining the skills necessary for employment. The importance of these services cannot be overstated to these young adults.

With that, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 27.

Mr. Speaker, each year America hosts thousands of foreign students from around the globe. For those of us who develop a professional or personal relationship with any of these individuals, we are truly enriched by their different perspective on the world. My staff has been fortunate enough to host a young woman from Australia, Rhiannon Riches. Driven by her insatiable desire for knowledge and experience, Rhiannon has quickly become an asset to me, my staff, and the state of Delaware. Every day, her presence reminds us of the innumerable benefits available through cross-cultural exchange.

For over 100 years, Australia and the United States have enjoyed a unique partnership that has endured world wars, economic malaise, and our current battle with terrorism. This tradition continues through the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program, which provides Australian students with the opportunity to experience American democracy first- hand through internships with Congressional offices.

The Uni-Capitol Program is the pro bono effort of former long-time House and Senate staffer Eric K. Federing. During the 1990s, Mr. Federing made extensive visits to Australian universities, where he lectured on government, politics, and news media. These visits were his impetus for the successful program that Uni-Capitol is today.

Currently, there are seven universities participating from across Australia. A dozen students travel to Washington, DC annually as part of the exchange, which has received support from both the U.S. and Australian governments. In 2004, Mr. Federing's firm, KPMG LLP, recognized the significance of the program with a Chairman's Award for Excellence in Volunteerism. However, according to Mr. Federing, the enthusiastic students who embrace this incredible opportunity are the true beating heart of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I know that our experience has not been unique. The other students and congressional hosts in 2005 should be congratulated for participating in this exchange: Julian Barendse (Melbourne University) in the office of Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; Anna Birmingham (University of Western Australia) in the office of Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio and the House Administration Committee, majority; Kirstan Fulton (University of Wollongong) in the office of Rep. Sam Farr of California;

Alethea Giles (Macquarie University) in the office of Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York; Sana Nakata (Melbourne University) in the office of Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida; Yvonne Oberhollenzer (University of Queensland) in the office of Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California; Lauren Reed (Deakin University) in the office of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, minority; Peita Richards (Macquarie University) in the office of the House Administration Committee, minority; Anthony Skews (Melbourne University) in the office of the House Science Committee, majority; Luke Toy (University of Canberra) in the office of Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; and, Ariella Webb (Melbourne University) in the office of the House Small Business Committee, majority.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to our Australian friends for their unbridled enthusiasm, tireless work ethic, and friendship over these past two months. The relationships we have forged here will last a lifetime, and it is my sincere hope that every congressional office partake in a similar endeavor.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple amendment to the very thorough legislation before us today. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Chairman Sensenbrenner) dedication to fixing gaps in our security is commendable, and I am proud to join him in strengthening Federal identity requirements, protecting those who need political asylum, and improving our border security.

The 9/11 Commission identified gates for boarding airplanes is the last opportunity for our screeners to use sources of identification to ensure that people are who they say they are, and frankly, obviously, to check whether they are terrorists. To improve this process, Congress tasked the Department of Homeland Security with the goal of developing and building upon the aviation watch lists that our screeners commonly rely upon today.

My amendment is intended to enhance the information contained in Homeland Security's aviation security screening databases and to ensure that our security is not compromised through the use of falsified driver's licenses.

Specifically, the amendment would require Homeland Security to enter into the appropriate database any person convicted of using a false driver's license in attempting to board an airplane. Currently, aviation screeners at the Transportation Security Administration immediately detain individuals suspected of presenting false driver's licenses and then turn them over to the custody of either the Department of Justice or local authorities. The criminal justice system is then responsible for determining whether the suspect is guilty or innocent.

Under the present system, if convicted, this person is sentenced to federally mandated punishment, but the Department of Homeland Security is not required to put their name on a watch list.

My amendment would go a step further in protecting our Nation by also requiring the Department to enter a violator into one of its national aviation screening databases. Improving the quantity and quality of information contained in these passenger-screening databases is essential to enhancing our ability to identify potential threats and prevent terrorists from gaining access to our airliners.

When a person is convicted of trying to deceive security to get on an airplane, there is serious cause for alarm. My amendment would ensure that those convicted of using a false driver's license in attempting to board an airplane would be red-flagged for airport screeners.

The amendment does not impact persons who use false driver's licenses for other purposes. It allows the criminal justice system to run its course, and it is focused solely on the last line of defense before terrorists board an airplane. It is a simple, cost-effective way to enhance the Department of Homeland Security's ability to track potential high-risk passengers.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to offer a small but important step in improving our security databases. My amendment would ensure that those convicted of using a false driver's license in attempting to board an airplane are red-flagged for airport screeners.

The people screening passengers at the gates do their best to make sure terrorists are not getting on these planes. Congress should do everything in our power to make their job easier.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, because I think the gentlewoman from Texas has made some very valid points that need to be discussed.

One thing that is important and what we have done here is to understand that there has to be a conviction in this situation by a court of law before it can be entered into a database of the Transportation Security Administration. That is very important. It gives all the protection of what could happen there. We thought a lot about that because it was a matter of some concern. So a mere allegation or something that proves not to be true would never be entered into the database. I wanted to make that point.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her good questions and for yielding.

We are not sure at this point whether they include that information or not at TSA, because simply they have databases and we do not know necessarily what is in their databases, and I do not blame them at all. They are not prone to reveal all of that. It is our judgment they should be doing this. We hope that they would be doing it. We do not know if they are for sure or not. I cannot confirm or deny that, because we simply do not know the answer to that particular question.

I would imagine, and I am putting myself in their position and I am not an expert on this, but if you are there and are in the security forces there, you are obviously trained in document recognition to some great degree. Some are better probably than others at this.

Obviously, if one has a database, it is obviously much more of a clear signal that this person needs to be looked at because they tried to do this before. That is the reason we feel it should be added into the database as it goes on.

I do not think this is going to change actually the way they look at licenses presently in the first instance or even in second instance. It is just a trigger mark as other things might be in terms of potential risks.

Yes.

If the gentlewoman will yield further, it speaks very specifically to trial and conviction.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield further, no, I would not have objected to having hearings. It is relatively simple. I do not mean to suggest it needs panels of hearings, but I never object to having a hearing.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has the right to close?

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

Mr. Chairman, I really do not have anything new to add to this, except that I think it is very important that this be done. We tried to make it as simple as possible with all the judicial support behind it which would make it clearly fair to everybody who might be involved in this.

My sense is that if I were running TSA, which I am not and do not want to, but if I were doing so, this is certainly something that I would want to do; and I would hope that by passing this legislation we will make sure it happens now and into the future.

Part of my motivation for this, by the way, and some other amendments I introduced which were not allowed on this, is I am still convinced that a lot of 9/11, if not the entire procedure, could have been avoided if we had better security measures in place on some of these things.

So I think this is a very important area. While everything else in the 9/11 report is of huge importance, I have always felt that this particular area of making sure who is in this country and who is boarding planes or other transportation systems is vitally important. So I would hope we would be able to join together and pass an amendment like this and hopefully later the legislation.

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