Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4200, the ``National Defense Authorization Act of 2005.'' I am pleased that Congress was able to complete work on this important bill prior to recess. As an outside Conferee to H.R. 4200, I am particularly supportive of the education provisions in the bill before us today.

There are a number of provisions in H.R. 4200 that will help local schools better serve students in military families. For example, we ensure that school districts can continue to count federally-connected students who reside on the military base as on-base students for the purposes of calculating Impact Aid payments in cases when federally- connected students temporarily move off-base to live with a relative or family friend and when both of their military parents are deployed for active duty. The provision will also ensure that school districts continue to count federally-connected students who reside on-base as on-base students for the purpose of calculating Impact Aid payments for six months after the death of a military parent.

In addition, we have increased the amount of aid local schools will receive that are impacted by the presence of military installations, as well to increase funding to help school districts provide special education services to certain dependent children with severe disabilities.

Finally, with respect to the education provisions, we were able to establish the National Security Education Program to provide resources for scholarships, fellowships, and institutional grants in higher education. The program's mission is to lead in the development of the national capacity to educate U.S. citizens, understand foreign cultures, strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness, and enhance international cooperation and security. In our ever growing world economy, I believe these provisions are imperative to ensure that U.S. citizens have a solid understanding of other nations.

Mr. Speaker, Congress recognizes the sacrifices and contributions our courageous soldiers have made in the war against terrorism. Hopefully, the ``National Defense Authorization Act of 2005'' will go far in supporting our military efforts and protecting the freedoms that we all enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, not enough is being invested in improving rail and transit security. We have seen massive efforts to shore up security in our skies and even on our roads, but efforts to boost rail security have not received the same federal commitment.

At present, rail and transit systems move 14 million passengers a day--almost eight times as many passengers as the U.S. aviation system, which carries 1.8 million air travelers daily. The federal government spends $9.16 per aviation passenger for aviation security yet only $115 million has been appropriated for transit security over the last 2 years, or six-tenths of a penny per passenger. Our national homeland security strategy is only as strong as our weakest link. This funding balance needs to be addressed in any comprehensive legislation implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

For these reasons, today Representative Kirk and I are introducing the Railroad Security and Public Awareness Act of 2004, which would enhance rail worker security training; fund station, train and infrastructure security projects; and increase passenger awareness of railroad security. Rail security is a priority for many Americans, who depend on rail for both inter-city travel and commuter service. I know that many states, including my own state of Delaware, rely on rail--for commuters, personal transportation, economic necessity, or a combination of services.

Few of us doubt that there is a real threat to our transportation systems, including the U.S. rail system. On April 2, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent out an uncorroborated bulletin stating that terrorists could attempt this summer to conceal explosives in luggage and carry-on bags, such as duffel bags and backpacks. The bulletin indicated that such bombs could be made of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel, similar to what was used to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.

Awareness among workers and riders must continue, so that Americans are well educated on the threats to our nation's rail systems, and our rail systems are well equipped to respond to an attack. The March attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system clearly shows that al Qaeda is targeting and will strike rail targets throughout the world using simplified methods of delivery.

Areas of vulnerability within our rail systems and the various delivery methods for attacks should be outlined and incorporated into a strong plan for employee training, passenger screening, and incident response. I realize that the answers to rail security are not the same answers to air security. Standard security precautions may not be practical for rail, many of which have the potential to drastically reduce ridership and cargo use.

My legislation would do the following:

(1) Require the Secretary of DHS to develop and issue detailed guidance for a rail worker security-training program to prepare front- line workers for potential threat conditions. Each railroad carrier would develop a rail worker security-training program in accordance with that guidance and submit it to the Secretary for approval. The legislation authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to railroads, hazardous materials shippers, owners of rail cars used in the transportation of hazardous materials, universities, colleges, and research centers, and State and local governments (for railroad facilities and infrastructure) for full or partial reimbursement of costs incurred to implement the program

(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security would develop and implement a national plan for public outreach and awareness. The plan

would be designed to increase awareness of measures that the general public, railroad passengers, and railroad employees can take to increase railroad system security.

(3) The bill authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to railroads (including Amtrak), hazardous materials shippers, owners of rail cars used in the transportation of hazardous materials, universities, colleges, and research centers, and State and local governments (for railroad facilities and infrastructure) for full or partial reimbursement of costs incurred to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism, sabotage, or other railroad security threats. As examples, these areas can include such steps as securing critical communications, electric power (including traction power), computer, and train control systems essential for secure railroad operations or to continue railroad operations after an attack impacting railroad operations; secure passenger railroad stations, trains, and infrastructure; and all provisions included in the Railroad Transportation Security Directive established by the Transportation Security Administration on May 20, 2004.

The convenience of rail could easily be jeopardized if our security and response solutions are not well planned. We must ensure that attacks like those committed in Madrid in March are prevented but also that proper response training is undertaken to prepare for such an incident.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5186, and thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for bringing this measure to the floor today. The bill represents responsible use of the taxpayers' dollars, and will go a long way in giving our Nation's math, science, and special education teachers much needed support.

What we are talking about today is a special category of student loans for which the government guarantees the lenders a return of 9.5 percent, even though the prevailing rate charged to students may be much lower. The 9.5 percent loans, backed by tax-exempt bonds, were established when interest rates were high in the 1980's to keep lenders in the college loan business. As interest rates declined over the past several years lenders have essentially been able to find a loophole ensuring the subsidy will continue. This is appalling, and according to a recent GAO report, the subsidy payments for 9.5 percent loans have risen from $209 million in fiscal year 2001 to $556 million in fiscal year 2003 and hit $634 million in the first three quarters of fiscal year 2004.

In the past year the President and the vast majority of this House have called for an elimination of the subsidy. Despite attempts to phase out the subsidy, we have not been successful until today. As Members of Congress we have a duty to responsibly spend the taxpayers' money. This is clearly a case where we were in the wrong, and we must now act to remedy the situation. This is especially true when you consider the fact that the savings from closing the loophole will provide additional loan forgiveness to address teacher shortages in key subjects.

Loan forgiveness will be expanded from the current maximum of $5,000 to a new maximum of $17,500 for highly-qualified math, science, and special education teachers who agree to teach for five or more years in high-poverty schools. Teachers in low income schools across the country currently receive loan forgiveness. While I wish we could find a way to increase assistance to more teachers, the fact is that a crisis exists with our math, science, and special education teachers. In the wake of No Child Left Behind's requirement to have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, this assistance will go a long way in helping to meet the requirement.

Today's measure is a combination of sound fiscal responsibility and an effort to help students across the country. A mixture of the two things I work toward every day. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. Members of this House chose to strip funding for Amtrak from this bill simply because the necessary agreement could not be reached on a floor rule to consider this legislation that would have protected Amtrak. Since the end of Fiscal Year 2002 when Amtrak was last authorized, Congress has continued to keep its commitment to our nation's rail passengers by funding Amtrak and ensuring that the nations trains continue to operate. We must continue that commitment as Congress continues to debate the right path for Amtrak's future through a reauthorization bill.

I am shocked that Members of this House would consider shutting down Amtrak in this manner, when a large majority of Americans favor continuing federal subsidies to Amtrak, and a substantial percentage would increase federal funding so the ailing passenger railroad can enhance its service. Fifty-one percent of respondents in an August 2002 Washington Post poll supported keeping Amtrak's funding current levels and twenty percent supported increasing the funding level.

Mr. Chairman, I request that the House support the $1.2 billion FY 05 level that was recently passed by the Senate Transportation/Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee. This Senate funding level is equal to the amount that Congress appropriated to Amtrak in FY 04 and is well short of the $1.8 billion requested by Amtrak CEO David Gunn to continue his 5-year strategic plan for the railroad. It may not be enough to implement Mr. Gunn's full plan for FY 05 but passage of the Senate level is vital to continue to address the acknowledged ``backlog'' of security and infrastructure needs on the Northeast Corridor--a backlog that threatens the continuation of safe and reliable passenger rail operations in the northeast region. That funding level is also necessary for Amtrak to continue to implement a system wide security plan.

In a July 17th interview with National Journal, Amtrak President and CEO David Gunn said that if Amtrak were appropriated $900 million in FY 05, the railroad would have to layoff 2,000 maintenance workers and close all major maintenance shops, including those in my home state of Delaware. As the U.S. economy continues to recover, we should not be cutting federal support for Amtrak work that will lead to jobs for our constituents. At the end of June, Mr. Gunn released the company's annual update of its strategic five-year plan that continues the focus of returning the railroad to a state of good repair

The plan addresses problems including aging interlockings, rail ties, bridges, catenary hardware, and sets aside capital for major fleet overhauls. The plan will remove most of the immediate safety threats to continued service and vastly improve reliability and on-time performance. By continuing the implementation of Mr. Gunn's five-year plan, we would remove the immediate impediments to daily service on the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak has made real headway in this work and it would be a shame to slow or scale back this effort.

The National Journal article also detailed that as a result of the management changes during Mr. Gunn's tenure, Amtrak has kept its expenses flat. By contrast, from 1997 to 2001, expenses grew at an average rate of 8.5 percent a year. The company has taken on no additional debt since the federal government's loan in the summer of 2002. Passenger ridership through the first eight months of FY 2004 is 16.2 million, up 6.2 percent over the same period in the last fiscal year. From February to May of 2004, the railroad has sustained four consecutive months of all time record ridership and, should the trend continue through the end of the fiscal year, will exceed 25 million passengers for the first time.

Mr. Gunn's plan also includes a system wide security plan in the wake of the earlier railroad bombing this year in Spain that killed more than 200 people and injured more than 1,600. The FBI announced earlier this year that they have credible intelligence that the nation's railroads are being targeted for terrorist attack. Amtrak's security plan includes the following: Securing key infrastructure, dispatching and control centers; Emphasizing detection and prevention at stations and on-board trains; Improving train communications and incident command systems. The plan states that ``Physical and technological improvements will create layered security countermeasures to address the `openness' of the Amtrak system in critical areas.'' Now is not the time to limit Mr. Gunn's resources to harden targets on the railroad's infrastructure, improve passenger safety, and strengthen efforts to facilitate an effective first responder response to a terrorist incident involving Amtrak.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the budget restraints that the committee is dealing with in crafting this appropriations bill but now is not the time to reduce our support for Mr. Gunn's effort to rebuild Amtrak's aging infrastructure and secure the railroad from potential terrorist attack

Mr. Speaker, during my service as a Member of the House of Representatives, it has been my honor and privilege to rise and pay tribute to organizations and people who really make a difference in the Delaware community. Today, I rise to recognize Marvin C. Sharp, President of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association (DVFA).

Marvin C. Sharp has been an extremely active and influential member of the fire prevention community for years. President Sharp is a Life Member of the Carlisle Fire Company of Milford where he served in several capacities as an emergency responder--including Ambulance Captain. He was ``Fireman of the Year'' in 1980 and ``Ambulance Attendant of the Year'' in 1986.

Marvin Sharp was formerly the President of Kent County Volunteer Firemen's Association. He served as President of the Kent County Ambulance Association and as President of the Delaware State Ambulance Association. As a result of his demonstrated leadership Marvin was subsequently nominated and elected as the Second Vice President of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association in 2001. He was elected First Vice President in 2002, and President in 2003. This year he was elected Fourth Vice President of the Cumberland Valley Volunteer Firemen's Association. His various positions within the fire services community are a testament to his dedication to the public, as well as the faith that President Sharp's leadership resulted in an amendment to the by- laws of the DVFA which allowed the Wilmington Fire Department, our state's only fully career fire department, to join the Association as a full member. In an era where some volunteer and career fire departments are experiencing problems in working together, Delaware again stands tall by including every fire company in Delaware under the DVFA banner.

The Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association has been served well by President Marvin C. Sharp. Along with my fellow Delawareans, I would like to commend Marvin, not only for his tireless efforts on behalf of the First State, but also for his tremendous contributions to the DVFA. Marvin is an exemplary model of commitment and excellence, and a valuable member of the Delaware community. I salute Marvin C. Sharp for his efforts to keep the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association a strong and vital part of Delaware.

Mr. Speaker, during my service as a Member of the House of Representatives, it has been my honor and privilege to rise and pay tribute to organizations and people who really make a difference in the Delaware community. Today, I rise to recognize Nancy Green, President of the Ladies Auxiliary of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association (LADVFA).

Nancy Green joined the Harrington Fire Company Ladies Auxiliary in 1964. She is a Life Member of the Harrington Ladies Auxiliary, and has served as Vice President and President. Nancy also served as President of the Ladies Auxiliary of the Kent County Firemen's Association.

Nancy's record of service to Delaware is exemplary. While a teacher in the public school system for 30 years, Nancy volunteered as a Delaware State Fire School instructor--teaching public fire safety education programs. Nancy is also a Library Commissioner at the Harrington Public Library, President of the Century Club, and the Newsletter Editor of her high school alumni association. With out a doubt, Nancy has proven her dedication to improving her community and our state.

The Ladies Auxiliaries are a very important element of the volunteer fire service. These organizations assist the firefighters by providing meals and beverages at the emergency scene. Auxiliaries also serve public dinners and conduct other fund-raising events to provide the fire companies with. Nancy's service included these important missions, and as President of the LADVFA all Delaware's Auxiliaries when she was elected as President.

The Ladies Auxiliary of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association has been served well by President Nancy Green. She is an exemplary model of commitment and excellence and a valuable member of the Delaware community. I salute Nancy Green for her efforts to keep the Ladies Auxiliary of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association a strong and vital part of Delaware.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the legislation which I introduced, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, and I find it stunning that anyone would oppose this legislation. It just never occurred to me that could happen.

The legislation removes a barrier which currently prevents some organizations from donating surplus firefighting equipment to fire departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment rather than donating it to volunteer rural and other financially strapped departments.

We know that every day across the United States, firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We may presume that firefighters work in departments with the latest and best firefighting and protective equipment when in reality there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack of basic personal protective equipment.

In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. There is rarely enough money to buy new equipment. At the same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating their fire protection equipment to take advantage of new state-of-the-art innovation. Sometimes the surplus equipment has never been used to put out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to destroy, rather than donate, millions of dollars of quality fire equipment.

Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save State and local governments $36.8 billion a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than 19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer. While volunteering to fight fires, these same selfless individuals are asked to raise funds to pay for new equipment. Bake sales, potluck dinners, and raffles consume valuable time that could be better spent training to respond to emergencies. All this, while surplus equipment is being destroyed.

In States that have removed liability barriers, such as Texas, fire companies have received millions of dollars in quality firefighting equipment. In the 7 years of the Texas program, more than $12 million worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to needy departments. This includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles and more than 1,500 pieces of communications equipment. In total more than 33,000 items have been donated.

The generosity and goodwill of private entities donating surplus fire equipment to volunteer fire companies are well received by the firefighters and the communities. The donated fire equipment will undergo a safety inspection by the fire company to make sure firefighters and the public are safe.

We can help solve this problem. Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. This bill accomplishes this by raising the current liability standard.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation to better equip our Nation's firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.

I really find it amazing that anyone would come to the floor and vote against this legislation. There are nine States which have this in place at this time, and they are large States. I mentioned Texas, but there are also other large States such as Florida and California.

This is clearly something which has worked in these States. They have received contributions of communications and firefighting equipment. In most instances, it is far better equipment than what they have already. In every single case, the fire companies inspect the equipment to make sure it is safe, contrary to what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has stated regarding the safety aspects. In the research I have done, it has proven to be extremely safe.

But a lot of companies, frankly, in other States, corporations, absolutely refuse to make donations because they are worried about liability. We are simply trying to clear the way to do that. What is in the best public interest, to worry that somebody does not inspect the equipment properly, that is just not very likely to happen, or saving people's lives in firefighting, which is really what this legislation is all about.

There is no doubt the scale on this one is overwhelming in terms of doing something such as this. This protects the donor only, not the manufacturer. No one is donating dangerous equipment in this particular circumstance. There is no reason whatsoever not to support this legislation, not to support the volunteer firefighters, not to support the public who will benefit from this, not to support the use of the equipment rather than destroying the equipment because of concern about litigation and concerns such as those.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I hope when the time comes there is only one vote against this, and that is the gentleman from Virginia, and all other Members are aware of the benefits and what this legislation does.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Major David L. Baylor, upon his retirement from the Delaware State Police after 22 years of public service. His dedication to safety and to the security of all Delawareans is to be commended.

A native of Wilmington, Delaware, Major Baylor graduated from St. Mark's High School in 1978 and went into the United States Navy, before graduating from the Delaware State Police Training Academy in 1982. In later years, he earned his Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice from Wilmington College and his Master's degree in Business Administration/ Technology Management from the University of Phoenix. He is also a graduate of the FBI National Academy and the Pennsylvania State University Police Executive Management Course.

During his distinguished career, Major Baylor held several positions within the police force, and was a member of the Executive Protection Unit, where he helped to protect me when I was Governor. In fact, it was during this time that I realized just how popular Major Baylor is in the local community. Whenever we were in the car together, it was not uncommon for people to wave and honk their horns. For a while I thought they were greeting me, but eventually Major Baylor assured me that, in fact, he knew them and they were actually acknowledging him.

In addition to his impressive service in the Delaware State Police, Major Baylor has spent countless volunteer hours as a member on the Board of Directors of several organizations in Delaware. Such groups as the Bear/Glasgow Boys and Girls Club and the Delaware Mentor Program have benefitted greatly from his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, as one who has worked closely with Major David Baylor, I am confident that he has served our State well over his distinguished career. He is a fine representative of the First State and I look forward to hearing more about his future accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the achievements of Peter Oakley upon his success at the Senior British Open in Northern Ireland. A six-time Delaware Open champion, he finished one-stroke ahead of Tom Kite and Eduardo Romero to secure victory and become the first qualifier to win the Senior British Open in its 18-year history. Mr. Oakley was one of 112 golfers competing for one of the 26 slots available for qualifiers.

A resident of Delaware, Mr. Oakley is both an accomplished area professional golfer, as well as director at ``The Rookery,'' a public golf course which he helped create near Milton, Delaware. Before the Senior British Open, he had competed in seventeen major golf championships, including six Professional Golf Association Championships and three U.S. Opens. Just this year, Mr. Oakley qualified to join his brother David on the European Senior Tour.

In Delaware, Mr. Oakley is one of three six-time Delaware Open champions, with his most recent victory occurring in 2000. His biggest victory, prior to the Senior British Open, was in 1999 when he won the PGA Senior Club Professional Championship. With his victory at the Senior British Open, Mr. Oakley earns a twelve-month exemption which allows him to compete in every event on the Champions Tour.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate Peter Oakley upon his victory at the Senior British Open. His hard work and love for the game of golf is evident, and I am very proud that he is a Delawarean.

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to express urgency and remind the House that the existing ban on semiautomatic assault weapons will expire in only a few days, this coming Monday, September 13.

Reports continue to show that 70 percent of Americans believe that the ban should be maintained. In fact, the law enforcement community, the health care community, and the administration all agree that this ban should be allowed to continue to protect our communities from our increased vulnerability associated with allowing semiautomatic weapons back on our streets.

Some say that we do not have the votes to extend this ban, but Americans deserve a full debate and a House vote before we allow the expiration date to pass.

There is no reason not to go forward at this point; we have only 5 days left.

Do people need an assault weapon to protect their home? No. Do people need an assault weapon to hunt? No. Do people need an assault weapon to target shoot? No. But criminals use assault weapons to kill.

The ban should not be allowed to expire. I implore leadership to let us vote on continuing the ban.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 3-year anniversary of the brutal terrorist attacks on our Nation, it is important that we remember those who lost their lives and the loved ones they left behind to face a world that is forever changed.

The senseless acts of violence that awoke us 3 years ago, have gripped our thoughts and have given us a new appreciation for the freedoms we cherish. This weekend, as we mourn the loss of those who perished in the attacks, we should also celebrate their lives and look back on how each symbolized, in their own unique way, the unrelenting American spirit which binds us all to that clear September day.

Like the rest of our Nation, my home State of Delaware experienced a great deal of tragedy on September 11, 2001. Bobby Fangman, Matthew Flocco, Jon Grabowski, Robert Jordan, John Murray, Davis ``Deeg'' Sezna Jr., and Rich Stewart, all fellow Delawareans, were taken during the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In addition, Val Silver Ellis, Peter Frank, Michael San Phillip, Lincoln Quappe, Kevin Smith, Bill Tieste, Rodney Wotton and many others left loved ones behind in our State.

As a Nation, we have experienced the unthinkable and emerged again with determination and purpose. Yet, as we reflect on the past 3 years, there remains an enormous amount left to be done. Now is the time for us to come together in the heroic spirit of the citizens, firefighters, police officers, and emergency personnel who stood tall in the face of destruction. Congress must keep the memories of all the September 11th victims in mind as we do everything in our power to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

As we struggle to make progress in this momentous task, it is imperative that we remain focused and work together to reform our intelligence community and shore up the security of our homeland to protect all Americans. We have the power in Congress to implement change, but we must ensure that change is both meaningful and effective. One of the most important lessons that the victims of this tragedy can teach us is that every life is precious and that every action we take to improve our security could save lives in places like Delaware and across America.

Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to honor those who were lost by making sure their loved ones

remain safe from fear and intimidation. We must keep their memories with us as we fight to protect our freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the underlying legislation and the rule which is before us because it includes many things which I support, community health centers, the Ryan White AIDS program, and programs and activities at the CDC and the NIH, but mostly because the bill reflects our priority for the schools and students across the country. In the past 9 years, this Congress has provided record increases to our Nation's education programs, more than doubling discretionary spending to the U.S. Department of Education. As we all know, in recent years these increases have been coupled with widespread reforms that will ensure that every child in the classroom is learning.

In January of 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law, and we are now beginning to see the benefits of these bold policies. In the past couple of months, many States have reported

the number of schools in need of improvement is actually decreasing. In fact, in my home State of Delaware, 128 of our 173 schools have met adequate yearly progress, up from 75 in the last school year. This is remarkable news, and educators across the country are to be commended for their dedication to meeting the rigors of No Child Left Behind.

No Child Left Behind provides the road map for reform, and our past appropriations acts have given the funding to help make it possible. Title I alone has increased over $3 billion in the past 3 years and programs encompassed by the No Child Left Behind Act have nearly doubled over the same time period. Today's bill builds upon our impressive record by providing increases to IDEA, State assessments, teacher quality, Impact Aid and the Institution of Education Sciences, to name only a few.

As time progresses, the facts grow clearer that No Child Left Behind is the right thing for our students and that the Federal Government is providing the resources needed. There is no evidence to show that the law is an unfunded mandate, and we should all stand proud on our record of supporting all education programs.

I would be remiss if I did not take time here today to discuss embryonic stem cell research as well. As many of my colleagues know, I have been leading the House effort with my colleague from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) to expand the current Federal policy in order to realize the true hope that science holds for millions of patients who suffer nationwide. We have organized letters, met with the Nation's premier scientists, visited the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital in Boston where leading research is taking place, and have introduced bipartisan legislation that would expand the policy while remaining consistent with the President's ethical concerns.

Times have changed and science has moved forward from the President's thoughtful decision, and there are now over 150 new stem cell lines nationwide that have been derived with improved technology and are genetically diverse. We must reevaluate this policy. Unfortunately, now is not the time to do so. This issue must be decided on science, not politics. We must have a thorough debate in the House and in the U.S. Senate on the state of the research and how to move the policy forward while ensuring that research is conducted ethically.

Mr. Speaker, I plan to press forward with this issue in the coming months. It is too important to ignore.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the life of a brave young Delaware State Police officer, Corporal Christopher M. Shea. Corporal Shea was a proud and talented state trooper who died early Sunday morning after his patrol car was struck head-on by another vehicle.

A Marine Corps veteran and an extremely dedicated state trooper, Shea was Delaware's 33rd officer to die in the line of duty. At just 31 years of age, Shea had already distinguished himself as an intelligent and courageous public servant, with a true love of police work. As a four-year veteran of the State Police, assigned to patrol out of Troop 7 in Lewes, Shea served our State honorably. The fact that Shea was promoted to Corporal, only days before his death, is evidence of this bright young man's unlimited potential.

In addition to being a tremendous officer, Shea was also a thoughtful son, devoted husband and loving father. Born the second of eight children, Shea grew up in New Jersey where he attended Farleigh Dickinson College. After meeting his wife, Susan, the Sheas eventually moved to Delaware, where they had two wonderful children, Christopher Jr., 3\1/2\, and Elizabeth, 11 months.

While remembering their fallen comrade, Shea's fellow officers reflected on the trooper's ability to balance his commitment to police work with his unwavering devotion to family. Described as a talented and compassionate individual, Corporal Shea was a tremendous asset to our law enforcement community and he will be truly missed by his family, friends, and fellow officers.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere privilege to honor the life of a proud state trooper and heroic representative of the State of Delaware. Corporal Christopher M. Shea was an honorable defender of justice, and he deserves our deepest gratitude and respect.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong support of the Sherman amendment. We need to understand there is $126 billion in stock options granted in any one year, there was in 2000 in the United States of America. We are talking about small potatoes here, and frankly, the underlying bill here, in my judgment, is completely wrong in terms of the direction that the country and the stockholders are going. Who is speaking here for the stockholders of America, for those who have their value diluted because of what happens with stock options without any expensing whatsoever?

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) in terms of his knowledge about accounting, but what I know about volatility is that without volatility, you would not have anybody in the stock market whatsoever. Without volatility, you really have no value in terms of the stock options which are being granted. Without volatility, that means you basically are not really expensing the stock options so that the other stockholders and other potential investors can see what is happening out there.

For all these reasons, I believe absolutely we should pass this amendment in order to insert the measure of what these expenses are really worth by putting the volatility back into it. It is almost impossible to determine value if you do not do that.

And I might just add, while we are talking about this, that in the area of accounting, we can talk about Black-Scholes being imprecise and laugh about it, whatever it might be, and certainly it is imprecise, but so is sometimes the good will, depreciation and a whole series of other accounting measures that are used in determining the values of corporations. It is not all quite as black and white as everybody would like.

So for all these reasons, but mostly because it is the stockholders, the shareholders who are suffering, by far the largest bulk. It is not the CEOs running the companies. It is not even the employees of the companies. It is the stockholders of the companies who are, in my judgment, being faulted by the methodology which we use now.

For all these reasons, I would encourage everyone here to consider supporting the Sherman amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a different solution than the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker). I would suggest that we vote for the Maloney amendment and then against the underlying legislation, because the Maloney amendment would reinstate where all of this should be with the SEC. Have we not had enough corporate malfeasance in this country, say for the last decade?

We should let the SEC do the job that they are supposed to do. They are charged with the responsibility of dealing with this. It has the authority to establish financial reporting standards applicable to public companies since its inception. This bill would limit that authority for the first time ever, preventing the SEC from adopting an accounting standard for stock options even if it finds that it is needed to protect the interest of the public or the investors.

It prevents the SEC from performing one of its most important functions, establishing those accounting standards. It is that simple. That is where the expertise is.

I love the chart the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) had up there because eventually it showed that the regulators are the ones who are going to make the decisions. Perhaps they are better equipped to make these kinds of decisions. Perhaps people should sit down and talk to the FASB people and to the SEC people and understand that is where the decision should be made with respect to the expensing of stock options. Vote for the Maloney amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I would like to paint a little bit of a different picture here. Let us assume instead of Members of Congress, these 435 seats were filled with stockholders of various companies in this country, and I said, look, we have $126 billion worth of expenses to the various corporations, but you will never see it because we will do it without any kind of an entry whatsoever.

That is what this is really all about. That is what we are dealing with.

We are really not expensing stock options at all. It is, in my judgment, ludicrous to suggest that the bill which is before us actually expenses stock options without any kind of a volatility standard in them. So we are just letting that go on as we did for some time.

But what is happening around the United States of America as we speak here today? What is happening is that a lot of people who are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable about corporations, equity and running of corporations than we are, are saying, hey, this is wrong; we need to expense stock options.

I have these names here; I cannot go through them all. I do not have time to do that in the 3 minutes I have, but we recognize a lot of them. Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, Warren Buffet, names such as that. A significant number of people who have looked at this very carefully have come to the conclusion that we absolutely must do something about it.

A number of stockholders, as well, have done the same thing. For the first time ever, public proxies opposed by corporations are actually passing in the United States of America, some 40 of them this year, because stockholders have actually spoken out and have actually made the statement that we are going to do something about this; we are going to start to expense stock options.

Then, in addition to that, many corporations have looked at this and they said, we really do not need to have stock options unexpensed. We can expense them. We can live with that. Or we can issue restricted stock. There is a whole variety of ways in which we can compensate our executives and our other employees in a fair manner but in a way that would be shown to everybody who has invested in the corporation or might want to invest in the corporation.

Then there are all those companies that are voluntarily expensing their stock options. Again, I do not have the time to go through all of them, but Amazon, American Express, AT&T, Capital One, Coca-Cola, Daimler Chrysler. You name it and they are all beginning to do it.

The proposal which we have before us allows a regulatory body, the SEC working through FASB, to be able to come up with the fairest methodology of doing this. They have issued a rule. They are now listening to whatever the suggestions are. They should perhaps listen to Congress. I will be the first to tell you that Black-Scholes and other methodologies are not necessarily precise, but at least we are showing the expense of stock options so that all of the investors in this world, well over 50 percent of Americans who have invested in either mutual funds or corporations, will actually know what the heck is happening with those corporations.

If we vote for this legislation, we are basically going to brush it right back under the rug, and that is not where it belongs. So I would encourage everybody to take a careful look at this substitute which I think makes a lot of sense in terms of giving FASB the right to continue to do what they are doing. I would encourage us to look at all the amendments which are outstanding at this point and to vote for them and to oppose the legislation when the final say comes for the stockholders and the people of America.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 714) honoring Sandra Feldman on the occasion of her retirement from the presidency of the American Federation of Teachers for her tireless efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 714.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 714, which honors Sandra Feldman on the occasion of her retirement from the presidency of the American Federation of Teachers and for her efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

Ms. Feldman was born in New York City and educated in its public schools, including James Madison High School and Brooklyn College. She holds a masters degree in English literature from New York University.

A former teacher and United Federation of Teachers chapter leader of PS-34 Manhattan, she joined the UFT staff as a field representative in 1966. She was promoted through the ranks to executive director, a post in which she supervised all aspects of the union's work. In 1983, she was elected secretary of the UFT, the union's second highest office, before becoming president in 1986.

From 1986 through 1997, Ms. Feldman was president of the 130,000- member United Federation of Teachers in New York City, the largest union local in the United States and an affiliate of the AFT. During that time, she also served as a vice president of the AFT.

In May of 1997, Sandra Feldman was elected as president of the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers. She served as the 15th president of the AFT and the union's first female President since 1930. According to AFT publications, membership increased by more than 350,000 in her 7 years as president.

Ms. Feldman is widely recognized as an authority on urban education and an advocate for children and has long been willing to examine innovative approaches in efforts to raise student achievement. Her long-standing commitment to social justice dates back to her involvement with the early civil rights movement, both locally and nationally, when she was arrested during the Freedom Rides and other protests in the 1960s. U.S. Presidents, Governors, and mayors have appointed her to numerous commissions and task forces, tackling educational, economics, child welfare, labor, and other social issues.

This resolution honors Sandra Feldman on the occasion of her retirement from the American Federation of Teachers and recognizes her contributions to teaching and learning in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

I just want to add that all of the words that were spoken on both sides I think are particularly applicable to Sandra Feldman and the work she did with the AFT, who, in my judgment, was open-minded about change and progression in education; and for that I think she deserves a tremendous amount of credit. We wish her well as she goes off into her retirement.

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