Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise, sadly, to oppose this unconscionable power grab in which the Democrats, who claimed they have changed, have clearly indicated that they are back. They are up to the old tricks that they tried 12 years ago when they were thrown out of the majority. Here they are again using the Constitution as a political Handiwipe and extending full voting rights to favored rotten boroughs.

Now what is a rotten borough? During the 19th century in Britain, there were municipalities with tiny populations that were given full voting rights, and it took Britain years to get rid of that political inequity.

Today, to these people we are talking about extending voting rights to territories that have a fraction of the population of a congressional district, one territory that has the population roughly of Butler County, Pennsylvania, one of my constituencies; one that has roughly the population of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. And to my good friend from Samoa, and he is a good friend, he represents a constituency with roughly the population of Mill Creek Township in Erie County, Pennsylvania, which I represent. And yet he would be given full voting rights within the Committee of the Whole. That is an outrage.

Democrats once stood for one man, one vote. Today on the floor of the House, they stand for one Samoan, 10 votes.

Vote this down.

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

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a so-called energy bill that they claim will promote America's energy independence. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have presented the House Chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic energy production, give American energy companies less of a reason to invest in exploration here at home, encourage greater dependence on foreign oil, and damage America's manufacturing base.

H.R. 6 has become another political football for the Democratic Party. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, as The Washington Post rightfully editorialized yesterday, energy policy deserves more serious treatment.

The Democrats' solution to America's energy crisis is to single out oil and gas producers for a tax increase. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not likely to impact oil producers' profits in any way, shape, or form. This is energy policy by focus group, not a serious prescription for achieving America's energy future.

The one thing that we can be assured that this bill will do is raise prices at the pump for America's consumers. Furthermore, it creates disincentives that will decrease the supply of domestic natural gas and oil and increase our country's energy imports.

While H.R. 6 not only forces our country to become more dependent on foreign oil, it will also force America's working families to bear the brunt of increased energy costs.

The $6.6 billion tax increase embedded in this bill will inevitably be borne entirely by consumers in the form of higher gasoline and home energy prices. The effects of high gas prices will ripple throughout the economy, increasing prices on everything from electronics to school supplies. Like the Keystone Kops, the House leadership aims at one target but ends up hitting the American public.

In addition, the Democrats have yet to detail what exactly they will do with an additional $14 billion in revenue. In my view, such excess revenue will provide the Democratic leadership with a liberal slush fund to curry favor with one industry over another.

If Democrats want to invest in new energy technologies, they should debate and define their priorities openly. This, Mr. Speaker, is political pork barrel at its worst.

Finally, H.R. 6 is an assault against America's manufacturing base. Using nearly one-third of the Nation's energy, both as fuel and feed stock, energy production is the very heart of American manufacturing. With such an energy-intensive industry, raising energy prices will make domestic manufacturers less competitive in the world market. This is one reason why the National Association of Manufacturers has firmly opposed this bill.

By making the oil and gas industries ineligible for the section 199 deduction for domestic manufacturing activities and changing current amortization rates for the geological and geophysical costs incurred in energy exploration, H.R. 6 will further erode the U.S. comparative advantage, forcing more and more of our good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated for a comprehensive energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase America's access to clean, affordable and dependable energy for their cars, homes and businesses. H.R. 6 is simply not the answer.

This legislation is bad energy policy and bad tax policy which explains why the Democratic leadership shoehorned it through the process without a committee markup or even a single public hearing.

We must stand up for American manufacturers, stand up for American consumers, and preserve our domestic energy supply. So I urge my colleagues to join me today in opposing H.R. 6 and supporting the Republican alternative.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and a strong advocate of energy policy, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

(Mr. Weller of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of a strong American energy policy, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a leader in the area of energy policy on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of yielding 2 minutes to a distinguished and very articulate member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a new Member of the House who I think brings a strong perspective on energy policy to this House, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I would welcome the opportunity to allow the gentleman from Washington to allocate some more time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished Member of the House, a leader from Tennessee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, may I yield the gentleman from California 30 seconds to do that?

I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, 15 seconds simply to point out to the last gentleman that all they are really doing here is moving forward in some leasing policies that are similar to what Congress has passed before, or at least the House has passed before. And beyond that, they are raising taxes, not saving money. That is going to be felt by consumers across the spectrum

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Pennsylvania delegation who has been a strong advocate for new exploration in the United States, the gentleman, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after the other committees have used their time.

Mr. Speaker, in response may I yield myself 15 seconds, simply to point out to the majority leader that he is terribly mistaken if he thinks he is repealing a special tax break. In fact, oil and other energy production was treated the same way under the tax bill that was passed as all other manufacturers, and this differential treatment is one of the reasons why the National Association of Manufacturers so strongly opposes this bill. This does not fulfill any of their commitments on energy any more than the underlying rule fulfills their commitment to an open process.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after other committees have used their time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the Speaker for the opportunity he has to preside today. Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, Congress passed a Medicare bill that for the first time created an opportunity for many seniors to have access to strong, valuable and persistent prescription drug coverage. Although the legislation was a compromise, and in places an imperfect one, this program has proven to be a success, working for seniors with a range of circumstances and particularly valuable resource for seniors of the most limited means, many of whom are in my district.

It falls on us in this Congress to consider ways that we can further strengthen this benefit. Unfortunately, the legislation that we have debated today, H.R. 4, is a huge and real step back and is less of a policy than a bumper sticker.

As a member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this program, I am deeply disappointed that we had no hearings, no discussion and no opportunity for amendments to produce a real pricing reform bill with teeth and with nuance. While part D is not perfect and can be improved, it is our fundamental responsibility to put in place a policy that might build on the successes of the program, and they are substantial.

Independent estimates for the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit for the fiscal year 2008 budget cycle show that net Medicare costs are 30 percent less, about $190 billion lower than were originally predicted when the benefit was created in 2003.

In addition, based on strong competitive bidding by health care plans for 2007, average monthly premiums will be approximately $22 for beneficiaries, down from $23 in 2006 if enrollees remain in their current plans. The initial estimate for 2006 premiums was $37. CMS has indicated that beneficiaries are saving on the average of $1,200 annually on their drugs, and these are achievements that must be preserved.

Many people in my district like the idea of the legislation which the House Democrats put forward today. I understand how they feel. I have long felt that we could improve on the existing policy and the existing process. But what I found was that the Democrats' plan is more of a political stunt than a solution. And it isn't at all a prescription for real reform, and it is, at best, a placebo, but one that could actually reduce the benefits and the coverage for many individual seniors. To understand why, we need to recognize how much this proposal has been criticized. Even leading liberals like Urban Institute president Robert Reischauer and Brookings Institution senior fellow Alice Rivlin have expressed real qualms about an initiative that limits choices for seniors by putting government bureaucrats in charge of setting prices for prescription drugs. Reischauer recently said to The Washington Post: ``People were worried no private plans would participate. Then, too many plans came forward. Then people said it's going to cost a fortune and the price came in lower than anyone thought. Then people like me said that they are low-balling the prices the first year. They will jack up the rates down the line. And lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, we have got to have the government negotiate lower prices. At some point you have to ask, what are we looking for here?''

Rivlin stated: ``It's not clear that a government, particularly this government, would get a better deal from the drug companies by direct negotiations than the drug plans can get on their own, and it might have some negative consequences.''

We also want to recognize that the new majority has claimed that their proposal will provide significant savings, when, in fact, the CBO, nonpartisan, has announced that H.R. 4 would in their view have no budget savings and a negligible effect on Federal spending.

The reasons why I felt, as an advocate and caretaker for this program, obliged to oppose H.R. 4 are clear: one, this measure is not going to generate savings for the consumer; two, government price- setting will only drive drugs out of the program and reduce seniors' access to critical drugs that may be central to their treatment as individuals.

This plan could potentially, three, limit seniors' access to their community pharmacies. For many seniors, advice from their pharmacist is a critical service that they need to have access to to coordinate their drug uses and find the best coverage.

And, four, finally, this plan could lead to increased drug prices for America's vets.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we could improve on this legislation, and I will speak next week about some further ideas. I believe that there is a significant difference between the plan we have and the VA plan; and if we don't recognize those differences, we are going to shortchange seniors, and this bill that we voted on today will generate no savings. And I hope when it comes back from the Senate, that there will be an opportunity to substantially correct it, put teeth into it and create a real nuanced policy that will add to the successes of our part D program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a longtime advocate of raising the minimum wage, as someone who supports the McKeon-McCrery alternative because it is balanced and provides incentives for investment and small business and job creation. As someone who worked 10 years ago for the last increase for the minimum wage, working very closely with my then colleague Mr. Quinn of Buffalo, we were able to achieve that.

Today, we have an opportunity to raise the minimum wage, but because of the procedural restrictions we face on the floor some are going to be left behind and that is particularly disappointing.

While H.R. 2 will provide a $2.10 raise for American workers, sadly, it fails to take into account many Americans with disabilities who are in our workforce. These are disabled Americans who receive SSI disability benefits who are active participants in the workforce and maintaining jobs that give them great satisfaction. Unfortunately, they are left behind because, currently, SSI beneficiaries are limited to $900 per month in order to remain eligible to receive benefits. If the wage hike under consideration today goes into law without raising an earnings limit for people on SSI, Americans with disabilities engaged in full-time employment would either potentially lose their benefits or have to cut back on their hours. That is a decision they shouldn't have to make.

Mr. Speaker, this is not only a disincentive to work, it is a woefully shortsighted policy, which hopefully we will be able to correct before this law goes into effect.

I introduced H.R. 290 which would ensure that workers with disabilities would not lose their payments through raising the earnings limitation on SSI. I wasn't able to offer that provision today because no amendments are being allowed. The result, unfortunately, is, having barred Republicans from having offered this change as an amendment, the majority has created as real victims not House Republicans but Americans with disabilities. And that is a shame.

Although an increase in the minimum wage is critical, and I strongly support this bill, I sincerely hope that the new majority will move ultimately to rectify this inequity in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6206, the Truman Scholarship Fund Modernization Act. It closes an important loophole in our existing law.

First, I want to thank all of us who helped us get this bill to the floor today: Chairman McKeon and the Education and the Workforce Committee, Representatives Boehner and Blunt, and all of their staffs.

This bill would simply allow the board of trustees of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, instead of the Secretary of the Treasury, to choose the type of interest that would be received as a yield on the bonds issued by the Truman fund.

Other established and highly accreditable programs have already had this minor change in their discretion; for example, the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation and the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development.

This foundation, the Harry S. Truman Foundation, is a living memorial to our 33rd President. And it has also become an emblematic program of promoting young people to encourage them to be educated for citizenship and political responsibility and to assume the mantle of leadership in our political process.

Every year hundreds of college juniors compete for what amounts to approximately 80 awards. The rigorous selection process requires the candidates have a strong record of public service as well as a policy proposal that addresses a particular issue facing society. These individuals are among our Nation's best and brightest, and many of them have gone on to provide real leadership within our government and within our institutions.

I am a strong supporter of this program, a program that assists in education as a lifelong learning process.

Scholars who participate in this program are invited to participate in a number of programs, including the Truman Scholar Leadership Week, The Summer Institute, The Truman Fellows Program, and the Public Service Law Conference.

This program has been an extraordinary success, and this bill provides it

greater flexibility in generating the one source of revenue it has. We think that this program is very important. We think that this change is essential. We think that this is an important commitment for this Congress to make to cultivate the leadership of the future in public service.

I salute the gentleman for leading this effort to pass this bill on the floor. I am privileged to have introduced it with the idea that this one small change can do a great deal to promote greater leadership not only in this institution but throughout our political process and throughout our governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation to update the Internal Revenue Code mutual fund rules to clarify that a mutual fund is permitted by the tax rules, as they are by the securities law, to invest in publicly traded securities representing interests in trusts holding precious metal bullion, such as gold.

Beginning in November 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission has permitted the registration of securities representing equity interests in trusts holding precious metal (gold and silver). These securities now trade on the New York Stock Exchange and the American Stock Exchange. They did not exist at the time the mutual fund tax rules were most recently amended by Congress.

These investments share the same essential characteristics as other securities that give rise to good income for mutual funds under the Internal Revenue Code. In particular, they are clearly ``securities'' for purposes of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and under the mutual fund tax rules, gain on sale of ``securities'' is clearly good income for the mutual fund.

However, because the bullion funds are treated as ``grantor trusts'' for income tax purposes, it is not clear whether the income from these securities would be considered qualifying income under the Internal Revenue Code Section 851(b) mutual fund rule that requires that 90 percent of the income of the mutual fund must be from securities and other specified passive investments. The Tax Code provisions applicable to grantor trusts generally treat the shareholder, ``grantor,'' as owning directly the underlying assets of that trust, rather than owning merely its equity interest in the trust, even when the shares in the trust are traded as securities on the major exchanges. As a result, a mutual fund's income from such an investment, including gain on sale, could be considered nonqualifying income. Excessive nonqualifying income would destroy the mutual fund's qualification as a mutual fund and subject the fund income to a layer of tax at the fund on the same income that is also taxed to the shareholders.

The bill updates the Internal Revenue Code to correct that problem for securities holding precious metal bullion. It provides that the income derived from any interest in such a trust, including gain on the sale of such an interest, is considered qualifying income for purposes of the 90 percent rule. To qualify under this amendment, at least 95 percent of the holdings of the trust must be in the form of precious metal bullion.

As a result, individuals and pension plans that invest through mutual funds will have access to these types of investments in bullion when the mutual fund manager wants to make those investments.

The amendment would be effective for tax years beginning after date of enactment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for an opportunity to share, the opportunity to comment on I think on what has been a very important moment.

It is a sobering sign of the times, in my view, that a papal speech that was meant to address the harmony between faith and reason and deplore the idea of religious violence is contradictory to the nature of God would inspire demonstrations and violence in a large cross- section of the Islamic world.

The angry reaction of some Muslim leaders and politicians to the September 12 academic lecture by Pope Benedict XVI in Germany has disturbed Catholics and non-Catholics alike and raised many questions about the possibilities of honest dialogue between Islam and the non- Islamic world, particularly in a world of 15 second sound bites.

The Holy Father's lecture was not intended obviously to be a critique, let alone a criticism, of Islam. It was instead a very esoteric discussion of three different views on the nature of knowledge, particularly the knowledge of God. The pope used a quote by the late Byzantine emperor, not a Catholic, Manuel II Paleologus, regarding Islamic teachings on holy war and the command to spread the faith by the sword, as a starting point of his discussion.

The basic thrust of the Pontiff's remarks were that Christian theology derives from Hellenic roots that view God as the embodiment of reason and is, therefore, bound by reason because to be otherwise would be contrary to his own nature. He contrasts Christian theology with a strain of Islamic thought which, in the Holy Father's description, posits that God transcends reason and, therefore, is not bound by any restrictions whatsoever. He also contrasts Christian theology with the evolving viewpoint that reason needs no embodiment, that it stands outside of any form of divine authorship and views Christ as merely an inspired moral philosopher rather than as the Logos, the embodiment and author of reason and the creator of the physical world.

A careful reading of the pope's remarks quickly reveals that he spends more time describing the dehellenisation of Christian theology than discussing Islamic theology and never at any point disparaged or insulted Islam. In fact, he specifically describes the emperor's remarks as brusque and is astounded by the quality. At no point does the pontiff endorse the emperor's remarks or make them his own.

Mr. Speaker, there are three points that need to be made about the extreme reaction of the pope's quotation of the Byzantine emperor.

First, the current turmoil is in large part the fault of those in both the West and the East who have misrepresented the pope's words and the pope's intent. In the West, the news media has done a spectacularly poor job of reporting on the talk and putting it in context. When the pope apologized for the upset that his words caused, Jim Lehrer of PBS' Lehrer News Hour said the apology ``stopped short of retracting his statement,'' as if the pope had made the emperor's words his own.

The persistent misreporting of the controversial quote as the words of the pope himself was evident also in the demands by Muslim leaders for a papal apology. From Turkey to Iraq to Iran to the West Bank, many leaders and politicians have exploited the controversy to suit their own ends. This kind of debased manipulation of religious sensibilities for demagogic gain should be condemned by moderate Muslim leaders in the West.

Second, both Christianity and Islam needs to come to terms with their historic mistakes and excesses. Christianity has much to answer for in its history, including inquisitions, pogroms, forced conversions and holy wars which have left scars that have yet to fully heal. Nevertheless, Islam is not without its own transgressions. From its 7th century destruction of Christian churches in north Africa to its repeated invasions of Christian Europe,

Islam has a long history of conquest. Indeed, Christendom's Crusades need to be understood within the context of Islam's assaults on the Byzantine Empire and the continued threats to Europe.

Mr. Speaker, if only Muslims are allowed to express historical outrage and only Christians are required to apologize for past wrongs, there will be no chance of a deep historical and cultural dialogue. More importantly, experience demonstrates that while we may learn from history, we must put past offenses behind us if we are ever to hope to live in peace. Conflicting sects and ethnic groups from Northern Ireland to South Africa recognize that demanding Draconian justice for intergenerational grievances leads only to prolonged conflict and have chosen instead to concentrate on building a better future for their children. The Christian and Islamic worlds can and must do the same.

Third and finally, this particular controversy underscores the importance of the pope's call for a dialogue based on faith and reason. Even religions as different in their conceptions of God as Christianity and Islam must find ways to engage politically, culturally and, over time, theologically. My home State, Mr. Speaker, was founded by William Penn, a refugee of an oppressed political minority who created an environment where sects could live together and exchange views and have mutual respect and even admiration. Voltaire wrote at the time that Pennsylvania had the freest air on earth. Pope Benedict's commitment to this kind of genuine dialogue is clear.

Despite the fact that Pope Benedict never intended any offense, the pontiff has repeatedly expressed regret at the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of his remarks on Islam. He has expressed deep respect for the faith of Muslims.

Speaking at the September 21 general audience in St. Peter's Square in front of more than 40,000 people, the pope noted from his recent trip to Bavaria and told his audience, ``This quotation, unfortunately, has lent itself to misunderstanding.''

I think we can take him at his word. I think in my view we can let this matter die, and we should use it as a starting point for a genuine dialogue between the Christian West and those of us in the West who want to see a liberal society and also Islam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to comment on this recent turn of events.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Phoebe Strobel as an example of excellence for community service and to congratulate her on her retirement. Having contributed great services to her community in both Millcreek and Warren County, it is my hope that she will continue to share her talents and prosper in the years to come.

Strobel is a graduate of Lock Haven University and Edinboro University, where she earned a masters degree in elementary education. She has taught at both Asbury Elementary School in Millcreek and Pittsfield Elementary School in Warren. She has just retired in June 2006 after teaching third grade for thirty-six years at Asbury School, for which she received a citation from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania House of Representatives sponsored by Representative Matthew Good and John Evans in congratulations. Her talents have distinguished her from among other teachers. This enabled her to receive the Pennsylvania Parent-Teacher Association Lifetime Achievement Award in 2000.

Throughout her career as a teacher, Strobel represented education's finest by serving in various associations and committees. She is dedicated to the Northwestern Region Pennsylvania Education Association (PSEA). Serving on the PACE team for 10 years, she has been the PACE Director for Northwestern Pennsylvania since 2002, the PSEA Legislative Committee Co-chair from 1998 to 2002, and a state delegate to the PSEA House of Delegates thirty-six times and eight times as a national delegate to the National Education Association Representative Assembly. Beside her state and national participation, she was also active within community boards, serving the Millcreek Education Association as Secretary and Executive Board member from 1996 to 2002 and as Asbury's Building Representative from 1986 to 2002. She was also a member of the Warren County Education Association Executive Board from 1980 to 1986.

Strobel represents the devotion of an individual to her community and to education. Her example demonstrates the importance of education and involvement that affects the lives of parents and students. For her accomplishments, she deserves congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me at this time in recognizing the service of Phoebe Strobel and in congratulating her on her retirement with wishes of continued success in all her endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, let me say what is sad and shameful here tonight is the argument being made by so-called progressives to justify their vote against raising the minimum wage. This legislation, granted, includes an extension of the work opportunity tax credit so that we can encourage more people to move off welfare onto the rolls. It includes extensions of the deduction for higher education expenses and the deduction for teachers for their day- to-day expenses in the classroom. It includes expensing of mine safety equipment. It also improves access to lifesaving vaccines.

Mr. Speaker, it also includes an increase in the minimum wage, something they led us to believe that they wanted to see, something that I have been fighting for for years, and they have done nothing to carry any heavy lifting on.

Mr. Speaker, the one vote on raising the minimum wage in the House this year is this vote and we are going to take names, and workers are going to be watching.

Mr. Speaker, this current minimum wage is an embarrassment. A 40- hour-a-week worker at minimum wage makes just over $10,000. Working families are struggling to make ends meet, to address higher gas prices, to address rising home heating bills. And in the face of all of that, the so-called progressives are finding every imaginable excuse to vote against raising the minimum wage. They have always liked the politics of the minimum wage and generally cared little for the policy of the minimum wage. We have always clustered increases of the minimum wage with other issues. There is nothing novel about this.

This is one up-or-down vote. The American people are going to be holding them accountable. And if they vote ``no,'' they are voting against raising the minimum wage. That includes the gentleman from Ohio who is running for the Senate and we are going to watch that one with a great deal of interest. There is only one vote this year for raising the minimum wage. It is this one. We are going to hold you accountable for how you vote on it, whether you hiss or not.

Will the gentleman yield?

Did the gentleman vote for raising the minimum wage the last time this came up in 1996?

And how did you distinguish this bill, which included tax provisions for a variety of small businesses, from this bill?

So you voted for the chicanery then, and

you are going to vote for it now. Congratulations.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 4157, which is not a panacea, but is an important starting point on this very important topic.

This legislation would work to ensure interoperability standards for health IT are adopted, stimulating investment in electronic health records, electronic prescribing and other forms of IT that have been demonstrated to make health care safer and more efficient.

Only through a truly interoperable, nationwide system will the benefits of health information technology be fully realized. The widespread adoption of health IT holds great promise to reduce medical errors and administrative costs, which can lead it to a dramatic improvement in the quality, the delivery and the cost of health care.

A couple of years ago in my district, I established a Health Care Cost Containment Task Force which identified preventable mistakes and physician errors as a significant source of health care costs in the system. One of my task force's recommendations was to help curb the rise of preventable medical errors through the implementation of health information technology.

I am very pleased with the work that our subcommittee and its chairman have done in this area. This is a very important initiative because, compared

to other industries, health care has a neolithic perspective when it comes to information technology.

The core idea, Mr. Chairman, behind an electronic health care system, is that doctors in one State treating an emergency room patient visiting from another State should be able to access that patient's records on a nationwide health care technology system. In this way, the patient will be better protected, the doctors will be able to treat the patient more quickly and more effectively, which would cut down on errors, and the Nation will save on health care spending.

By supporting this legislation, we make a significant move forward in bringing health care information technology fully into the 21st century and, in the process, saving lives and resources as well.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this fairly straightforward trade agreement has generated not one, not two, but a whole school of red herrings that I think have to be knocked down quickly in succession.

We have heard a little of it already this afternoon on the floor. What is fairly clear is that the U.S. FTA with Oman clearly has worked through and worked closely with the International Labor Organization, and also with civil society in Oman, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. executive branch.

The measures that have been developed have gone through a legally mandated legislative, consultative process, and it has resulted in clear guarantees on labor.

On the matter of port security, critics of the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement have manufactured an issue, and we have heard this reiterated this morning, by claiming that the agreement gives foreign service providers unprecedented access to U.S. ports and is a threat to U.S. security. This is absurd.

May I introduce for the Record a letter to Speaker Hastert from the Secretary of the Treasury who says, in part, ``The FTA negotiated with Oman neither subjects national security interests to a third-party tribunal's assessment, as some have alleged, nor does it alter, amend or adjust the President's Exon-Florio statutory powers to protect the Nation's security in any way.''

Department of the Treasury,

Secretary of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2006.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: I understand that concerns have recently

arisen over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, FTA, and its

possible link to the security of U.S. ports--particularly

regarding the dispute settlement provisions.

First, this agreement is strongly supportive of our

national security in general and the war on terror

specifically. It marks another important step in our efforts

to deepen and strengthen commercial ties with countries in

the Middle East that are trying to modernize and give their

people long-term economic opportunities and political rights.

The United States should be a catalyst for economic growth

and stability in the region and an active supporter and

partner of countries, such as Oman, that are seeking to

integrate into the global trading community. Oman has been a

solid ally in our efforts in the Middle East and in the war

on terror, and we need to demonstrate to all countries that

our allies in this effort have a reliable friend in the

United States as they seek a better economic future.

Second, Article 21.2 of the U.S.-Oman FTA provides for a

national security exception that allows the United States to

take measures that we determine are necessary for the

protection of our essential security interests.

Foreign acquisitions of companies in the United States that

operate port terminals are subject to section 721 of the

Defense Production Act, the Exon-Florio amendment, which

authorizes the President to block and/or force divestment of

any proposed or ongoing foreign investment in the United

States that threatens to impair U.S. national security. The

Exon-Florio Amendment falls within the national security

exception, noted above, as a provision that the United States

``considers necessary for . . . the protection of its own

essential security interests.''

Port security in our country is not managed by port

terminal operators. A combination of municipal and State port

authorities, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the

U.S. Coast Guard are responsible for our Nation's port

security.

As the Secretary of the Treasury, it is my responsibility

to ensure the Exon-Florio amendment is executed. Protection

of the national security is my highest responsibility. To be

clear, the FTA negotiated with Oman neither subjects national

security interests to a third-party tribunal's assessment--as

some have alleged--nor does it alter, amend, or adjust the

President's Exon-Florio statutory powers to protect the

Nation's security in any way.

The FTA with Oman provides greater opportunities and opens

new markets for U.S. products, investors, and workers. I urge

you and your colleagues to pass the legislation to implement

this FTA as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,

Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, I have studied this issue extensively, and so has the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And what becomes fairly clear is that there is absolutely no merit to this charge. The Oman FTA provides no new rights to supply port-related services. In fact, as CRS notes, ``The agreement actually places further restrictions on Omani port services, because it makes market access conditional upon equal access for U.S. suppliers.''

The FTA preserves the CFIUS process, and does not interfere with it or in any way weaken it. In addition, the FTA preserves the right of Congress to strengthen the CFIUS process for national security reasons without running afoul of our obligations under the agreement.

Critics have taken shots at the essential security exception and have manufactured a bizarre hypothetical to scare Members into voting against the facts and against our key ally.

The essential security exemption provides complete protection, applying to all investments whether they are subject to the CFIUS process or not. Importantly, no party can appeal the essential security exception. In other words, if the U.S. blocks investment for national security reasons, reasons defined solely by the U.S. itself, then that is the final word. This self-judging standard provides foolproof tools to the U.S. to block investment when it is counter to our national security.

I realize there will be an argument that an entity can somehow set up a shell corporation in Oman and attach itself to the mutually beneficial provisions of the FTA. But even in this situation, the fact remains in any instance, the U.S. can invoke its essential security exception and block investment in the U.S., be it by an Omani company or by a company from any other country with substantial business activity.

We have heard that the WTO might entertain a challenge to this provision. But the fact remains there is no example of the WTO challenging successfully any country's use of this exception. This is purely a red herring. This is empty rhetoric. We need to approve this

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman who as chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee when I was a freshman was one of the key players in steering the welfare reform through.

I was a freshman when our new majority came to power and was determined to do things differently. As a result, we were able to push forward on a key initiative to change the welfare system in a fundamental way. We were successful. We came up against terrific resistance, initially resistance from the administration; but we were able to steer it through. Ten years later it is clear that we were successful.

As the gentleman said, this is a profoundly successful social reform. It is the most successful reform for bringing people out of poverty that we saw in the 20th century.

We have seen dramatic reductions in welfare dependence, fewer families in poverty, increases in work and earnings and declines in waste, fraud and abuse of welfare benefits. And this has occurred, I believe, in the context of a clear contrast, because they took a completely different position when we put forward this new welfare reform initiative.

May I quote the gentleman who is managing the time on the other side. It was just 10 years ago that he said of this legislation: ``It will put 1\1/2\ million to 2\1/2\ million children into poverty. In about 1998, you are going to start to see the impacts on cities, with more homeless families. They can't pay their rent. You will wind up with people living under bridges and in cardboard boxes.'' That is what Mr. McDermott said in 1995.

The reality is that we brought people out of poverty, we have brought the caseloads down, we have given the States more flexibility to deal with welfare problems. And it was this majority that fought them, fought them successfully, got a bill to the White House that that President could sign, and, in the process, started a transformation of our welfare system which continues today.

Mr. Speaker, we should celebrate this landmark and move forward with further reform of the welfare system.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we rise at a time when people all over the world are watching the Middle East, are watching the bombs that have lit up both Israel and Lebanon, are watching the troop movements and are hoping earnestly for peace.

Certainly the support of Israel is going to be loudly and consistently articulated in this Chamber this week, but we also have an opportunity to do something substantive, to improve our engagement with the Middle East in the coming week.

This week, we have an opportunity to vote on a substantive agreement which will bring one of the nations of the Middle East closer to the United States, promote economic opportunity and integration in the region, and lay the groundwork, in my view, for closer ties between the United States and some of our key partners in the Middle East and one in particular.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight as cochairman of the Middle East Economic Partnership Caucus, and I expect to be joined by a couple of my other cochairmen, to talk tonight about the benefits of the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, which we expect to be voted on in the House this week.

At a time when there is great instability in the Middle East, at a time when we are concerned on how the Middle East affects our homeland security, at a time when we want to do something positive to create economic opportunities in a region where the lack of them has spawned terrorism, this is a small, but important, opportunity.

The Middle East, we believe, is increasingly becoming economically integrated with the West, and if we want to fight the root causes of terrorism, we should be encouraging that. It is critical that now, more than ever, we encourage this integration to promote closer ties, democracy and social liberalization through a process of economic interaction and close cooperation.

In recent years, America's dialogue in the Middle East has been deepened by the addition of bilateral and, ultimately, strongly bipartisan free trade agreements, first with Israel, then with Jordan, then with Morocco and, most recently, with Bahrain.

The U.S.-Oman FTA, slated for a vote in the House Chamber this Thursday, largely builds off of the successful model that was set by the U.S.-Bahrain FTA, further supporting openness and stronger ties between the U.S. and the Middle East and the Maghreb regions.

Over the past year, Oman has clearly demonstrated a powerful commitment to this agreement and closer relations with the West, both in terms of its political will and institutional resources, making significant strides in improving its labor practices and opening its markets and being accountable for intellectual property issues and cracking down on intellectual property violations.

In numerous communications with our U.S. trade Representative, Omani leaders have promised to take a number of concrete steps by October 31, 2006, to build on the strong labor reforms already implemented, and in my view, as a member of the Trade Subcommittee who has closely followed this process, Oman has come further than virtually any other country we have ever engaged in this manner in dealing with core labor issues. Their commitment shows Oman's determination to address all concerns, while respecting the rule of law and its legislative processes.

In addition, all of these commitments are fully verifiable because Oman has agreed to have all of them reviewed under the FTA's labor consultation mechanism. The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement provides one of the highest degrees of market access of any U.S. free trade agreement to date and accounts for a substantial market access across Oman's entire services regime.

This agreement will make 100 percent of U.S. imports and exports and consumer and industrial goods duty free on the day the agreement enters into force. It also provides duty free treatment to 87 percent of our agricultural exports from day one. In terms of being accountable for intellectual property rights violations, Oman has agreed to criminal standards for copyright infringement and stronger remedies and penalties. It will increase criminal and civil protection against unlawful encoding of satellite TV signals and criminalize end-use piracy, providing strong

deterrence against piracy and counterfeiting.

This is just a small sample of some of the benefits of the U.S.-Oman FTA, and this agreement is far more important than the small market that Oman would suggest.

We recognize that Oman is a small place. It is probably the equivalent, in terms of purchasing power comparability, of entering into a free trade agreement with our own North Dakota, but it is extremely significant because it is a part of a much larger Middle East puzzle. It is part of a region that we expect, in coming years, to build much closer ties with, and the Oman agreement, as it has been laid out and as their government has agreed to embrace, is a very strong model for going forward with future agreements in this region.

The U.S.-Oman FTA is, after all, a comprehensive and high-standard agreement. High standards are provided for including comprehensive protection for intellectual property rights, government procurement transparency, and trade facilitation. Developing a high-quality FTA with Oman will establish a high standard for all of the other Gulf Cooperation Council Members and set a very high standard for them to meet.

Consequentially, the FTA represents a significant benefit to U.S. trade that extends well beyond those benefits that currently exist in Oman. The FTA establishes a secure, predictable, legal framework for U.S. investors in Oman and includes high-standard legal protection for their model on U.S. legal principles, such as substantive due process and the ability to comment on proposed laws and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, the FTA also creates and expands opportunities for U.S. goods and services. This FTA will broaden and strengthen the bilateral, commercial relationship between the United States and Oman beyond the approximately $748 million generated in two-way trade during 2004. One hundred percent of this bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products will become duty free under this agreement.

The U.S.-Oman FTA will build upon the trade and investment framework agreement signed between our two countries on July 7, 2004, and will spur continued growth of U.S. direct investment which in 2003 was $358 million, a substantial increase over the previous year. In addition, the FTA will increase the competitiveness of U.S. exporters and service providers in the Omani market, providing for an increased market share for U.S. manufacturers and service providers. In 2004, U.S. goods exports were $330 million, up 2.3 percent from 2003.

Oman, in my view, is a likely market for U.S. oil and gas equipment and services, transportation equipment, water and environmental technology, medical equipment, electrical and mechanical equipment, power generation and transmission equipment and services, telecommunications equipment and services, franchising, and U.S. poultry and beef. In each of these areas, we potentially will get a leg up on our foreign competition.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the FTA will encourage greater political and economic reforms. It is worth remembering that in 1997 Omani laws were enacted guaranteeing Omani women equal rights in both education and employment. Women have the right to vote and run for office in consultation council elections, which are held every 4 years.

In 1992, in an attempt to balance growth on its non-oil sector with concern for its natural resources, Oman developed a national conservation strategy, which was subsequently approved by the Council of Ministers and spells out the need and procedures for incorporating environmental considerations in the development plans.

In 1994, Oman became a member of the International Labor Organization, the ILO, and has satisfied various labor-related accession requirements for membership to the WTO.

In 2003, it is worth noting the government adopted its first comprehensive labor law that allows workers the right of association and to pursue labor disputes in court. That law abolished the 1973 prohibition on the right to strike. This is a radical move in a part of the Arab world where labor rights is increasingly an important movement.

The U.S.-Oman FTA advances modernization programs, implemented by Sultan Qaboos. In accordance with its accession to the WTO in 2000, Oman announced its intention to eliminate mandatory shelf life standards for shelf stable foods and to adopt internationally recognized CODEC standards for the labeling of prepackaged foods.

Additionally, as part of its WTO accession, Oman has adopted derogations to the Gulf Cooperation Council patent law to comply with its obligations under the TRIPS agreement, and has committed itself to begin negotiations to join the WTO agreement on government procurement.

In 2004, Oman removed its temporary ban on imports of U.S. poultry and poultry products, moving ahead of some of our other trading partners.

We need to recognize, Mr. Speaker, this agreement also provides support for an important strategic ally in the war on terrorism. This, I think, is as strong a reason to support this agreement as any.

The United States has maintained relations with the sultanate since the early years of American independence, and that friendship has grown over time. Oman supported the 1979 Camp David Accords and was one of three Arab League states that did not break relations with Egypt after signing the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty in 1979.

In April of 1994, Oman hosted the plenary meeting of the Water Working Group of the peace process, the first gulf state to do so.

Oman occupies a strategic position on the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Following the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Oman was the very first of the gulf states to formalize defense ties with the U.S. Oman has been a party with the U.S. to a military cooperation agreement since 1980, which was recently renewed in 2000. May I say, Mr. Speaker, when I joined a delegation that went to Oman just a year ago, I was very impressed by the commitment of Sultan Qaboos, as he articulated it to us, to continue and to strengthen this relationship.

It is worth noting that the Oman-U.S. Facilities Access Agreement has provided crucial support to the protection of Kuwaiti tankers in 1987. In 1988, during the Persian Gulf crisis, Oman assisted the U.N. coalition effort. Military bases in Oman were used in 2001 by U.S. coalition forces involved in ground raids against both the Taliban and Afghanistan and against Osama bin Laden.

The U.S.-Oman FTA, in other words, in my view at least, is a key building block toward building a broader set of economic relationships in the Middle East that can encourage economic growth. It is consistent with the 9/11 Commission's observation and recommendation, and here I quote: ``that the U.S. Government has announced the goal of working toward a Middle East trade area. A comprehensive U.S. strategy to counterterrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children's future.''

This important statement by the 9/11 Commission I think is consistent with moving forward this week to approve this Oman FTA.

Mr. Speaker, in assessing the impact of the Oman FTA, I have done a lot of research and I have tried to, I think, come up with an honest assessment of how this free trade agreement will affect our balance of trade.

As the Speaker well knows, I have spoken here many times about my concern about our large trade imbalance, about the fact that we are running a record trade deficit, and I am happy to say that my research suggests that the U.S.-Oman FTA will be a move in the right direction, if adopted. This FTA builds upon a well-established and receptive market for U.S. goods and services.

In 2005, U.S. exports were $593,000,000, up significantly from 2004. And again, I would note that 100 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products will become duty-free effective immediately on passage of this agreement, creating a substantial market in that part of the Middle East for our exports beyond what we have already.

Additionally, this FTA benefits key U.S. export and service sectors such as

the banking, securities, audio visual, express delivery, telecommunications, computer and related services, distribution, health care, insurance, construction, architecture and engineering sectors.

This agreement, as I have noted before, also contains tough intellectual property rights provisions to enforce strict antipiracy and counterfeiting laws. While we continue to call for an ambitious outcome of the negotiations of the WTO-Doha Development Round, we also recognize that it is important that we go forward with bilateral agreements such as the Oman agreement.

The passage of this FTA would send a strong signal to the world that the U.S. is going to continue to be a leader on trade policy, and that we were committed to opening a very important additional beachhead in the Middle East.

I think that when I talk to people in northwestern Pennsylvania, an area where we export a lot of manufactured goods, people want to know if this or any other new FTA has the potential to create future trade imbalances. I think it is particularly instructive that the U.S. International Trade Commission has done a study of the Oman FTA, and I would like to read from a part of the executive summary.

The finding of the ITC was as follows: The U.S.-Oman FTA will likely have a small but positive impact on the U.S. economy. The benefits will likely be moderated by the relatively small size of Oman's economy and Oman's share of U.S. trade. Oman accounted for less than .5 percent of total U.S. goods trade in 2004. The trade and welfare effects of tariff elimination on trade and goods will likely be negligible, reflecting not only the small volume of trade between the United States and Oman, but also the low tariffs on current bilateral trade. Tariff liberalization under the FTA will likely have little effect on the U.S. economy, industry and consumers because U.S. imports of most goods from Oman already enter duty-free or at low duty rates. Tariff liberalization will likely have a greater effect on U.S. imports of apparel from Oman, albeit from a small and diminished 2005 base. As such, the expected increase in U.S. apparel imports from Oman will be small in absolute value and quantity terms. In addition, the resulting increased annual levels of U.S. apparel imports from Oman will likely remain below the 2004 level of U.S. apparel imports from Oman. Most of the expected growth in U.S. apparel imports from Oman will likely displace U.S. apparel imports from other countries rather than domestic production.

Continuing, the FTA will likely increase export opportunities for U.S. firms when Oman immediately removes its uniform tariff of 5 percent ad valorem on U.S. goods and as it phases out its other tariffs on U.S. goods. The 5 percent tariff applied to 91 percent of U.S. exports to Oman in 2004. These exports consist mostly of machinery, transportation equipment, and measuring instruments. The FTA will also likely increase opportunities for U.S. providers of services through improved market access and greater regulatory transparency. For example, the FTA will liberalize provisions affecting trade in insurance services as well as banking and securities services such as asset management services.

So I think the point here, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a great opportunity for us, not a great threat, but is also an opportunity, I think, for closer economic engagements in the Middle East.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan, who is cochairman of our caucus, for such time as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield for a moment on that point?

Because the gentleman really was, on the floor, our leading not only advocate for but expert on the Bahrain FTA, comparing this free trade agreement and the commitment the government has made on top of it at a time certain, to the agreement made by Bahrain, how does this compare in strength?

Will the gentleman yield again?

On that point, I think it is important that the listeners and our colleagues understand some of the labor standards that are being implemented here. We are talking about a commitment by Oman to strengthen collective bargaining laws, to protect the right to strike, to ensure the reinstatement of wrongly dismissed workers, to allow multiple union federations, to ensure adequate penalties for antiunion discrimination, to end the government involvement in union activity and to do things like strengthen efforts against child labor that have been such a blight in that region.

Oman, at a stroke, is taking a real leadership role in moving forward in this area that is going to set this up as a modernizing government and as a modernizing society that really is going to be a good example in the region. And I wonder if the gentleman agrees with me that this breakthrough by Oman is something not only important for us to sustain in terms of our economic opportunities, but also, I think, fulfills part of our role as a liberalizing force in the world and setting the right sort of example in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for coming forward and so vividly presenting on the floor a positive vision of how we can engage the Middle East, how we can help them create opportunities, and how we can offer a positive agenda for fighting Islamofascism by getting at its root causes, by creating economic opportunities for young Arab men, by creating economic opportunities for these communities at a time when, in lieu of those opportunities, increasingly they turn to a dark vision of the world.

I think tonight, as the skies are lit up in Lebanon and over Israel, it is important for us to be able to offer a different approach for engaging those countries and for ultimately bringing them into the economic mainstream. I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary remarks.

I will yield, and I believe we have another speaker as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful and delighted that a strong advocate of trade and fair trade has joined us tonight to speak out on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) on this point.

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to thank the gentlelady for her extraordinary and insightful comments in capsulizing the very powerful argument for passing this free trade agreement and ultimately recognizing the key role of Oman in that region.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin if he would like to make concluding remarks, and then I would like to make a further contribution, with the inspiration of the gentlelady from Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

With that, I want to thank the gentleman again for his leadership on this issue, his vision and his commitment to building closer ties between the United States and the Middle East region.

The gentleman raised the very important question of not only the substance of the Oman agreement, but also its symbolism, because I think there will clearly be consequences to not passing the Oman FTA, if that were to happen in the House.

Oman, as the gentlelady noted, has been a steadfast ally of the United States for over 170 years. Oman has been a hugely valuable partner on the war on terror and has hosted U.S. soldiers and permitted the U.S. to use Oman as a critical launch site for ongoing operations in Afghanistan. Oman has embarked on what is clearly a large-scale, if not unprecedented, reform effort.

In terms of labor rights, worker safety, women's rights, Oman has shown tremendous commitment to improving these standards for both Omani workers, as well as the large number of expat workers currently working in Oman. They have a large number of guest workers, and this is part of their initiative.

Reforms in the area of labor have been commendable, even exceeding the level of commitment made by Bahrain as they entered into FTA with us. Were the Oman FTA not to receive the support of a wide majority of Congress, it would send tonight absolutely the wrong signal, not only to Oman, but to the entire Middle East region at a very sensitive moment. Passage of the FTA is not only in the commercial and political interests of the United States, it is also necessary to support the reforms in Oman and to deliver an important shot in the arm to stability in the Middle East region.

It is clear that despite turmoil within the Middle East, Oman has risen to become a regional leader, improving its labor standards, opening its markets and being accountable for intellectual property rights violations, among others.

Furthermore, our pact with Oman solidifies the strong U.S.-Oman alliance in the global war on terror. We listened tonight to the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and also we have the March 2006 National Security Strategy specifically citing the need to advance trade and economic liberalization in the Persian Gulf region as a key part of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to bolster security, to fight terrorism and to oppose Islama-fascism. However, America's influence in the region has to be measured by more than projected military might. If we are going to help anchor the Middle East in the modern world, we clearly must reduce conflict in the region by promoting growth and opportunity.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin said tonight, the U.S.-Oman FTA is a win-win policy that only builds upon our country's goal of strengthening economic relations and increasing trade, fair trade, with our partners in the Middle East. By strengthening our ties with the key strategic ally committed to trade liberalization and economic reform, the U.S.-Oman FTA will demonstrate to other countries in the region the benefits of free and open rules-based trade and engagement with the United States.

I hope that come Thursday, my colleagues on a bipartisan basis, as the gentleman put it, will put aside their partisan blinders and consider supporting this trade pact when it reaches the floor. A ``yes'' vote means yet another step on the long road to expanding new economic opportunity for both of our regions.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once admonished: before you consult your fancy, consult your purse.

It is the nature of all legislative bodies, including this one, to consult their constituents' fancies, but it is ultimately the responsibility of Chief Executives, including the President, to first consult the purse.

What we propose to do in this legislation is give the President a power to consult the purse that is fundamental and is available to most current Governors, a line item veto mechanism which will allow for the elimination, the challenge of individual spending items.

This is certainly a modest proposal, Mr. Speaker. It is not as strong as what we passed back in 1995 when I first came to Congress, but that was ruled unconstitutional after we gave President Clinton, a President of the other

party, the opportunity to use his line item veto authority 82 times.

President Clinton, using the line item veto, was able to cut over $600 billion in Federal spending before that power was ruled unconstitutional. It was just a few years ago, in January of 1999, I came before this body and offered a constitutional amendment to provide a strong line item veto to the President. But that ultimately proved to be too heavy a burden to carry.

We are considering a much more modest version of the line item veto today that would give the President the opportunity to veto entitlement changes and special tax breaks, as well as all discretionary appropriations. It would allow Congress to be able to act on veto packages within 10 days of the President's submission, and then Congress would have to hold up-or-down votes that would not be amended.

This is a fundamental power. This is an important part of the checks and balances. This will allow the President to unpackage pork barrel spending, the results of log rolling, and identify potential wasteful spending. This is not a panacea, but it is a fundamental reform impregnate of a range of reforms necessary in order for us to get our budget under control. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kerry Dumbaugh for becoming the Butler Distinguished Graduate for 2006. Having demonstrated a great degree of ability and knowledge in her field, it is my hope that she will continue to share this and grow in prosperity.

Graduating from Butler High School located in Pennsylvania's third Congressional District in 1970, Dumbaugh started out at Eastman School of Music as a piano performance major. Although she had been a piano student since she was 7 years old, she soon discovered that this was not the course she wished to pursue. She decided to transfer to Wittenberg University to study music, yet after meeting an enthusiastic professor, she was convinced to add Eastern Asian Studies to her ``repertoire.'' After her time there, she attended the University of Pennsylvania, where she earned her master's in Chinese Studies and International Relations. Thus began her political career. Working as a legislative correspondent, assistant, and director for various United States Congressmen, she enjoyed her experience, yet felt that there was more.

When a position at the Congressional Research Service, CRS, opened, Dumbaugh seized the opportunity. She went on to earn a master's in National Security Studies from the U.S. National War College. Utilizing her knowledge about Eastern Asia, with the CRS, she provides information and analysis about the developments in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China to U.S. Congressmen. She analyzes the political, military, economic, and security developments as well as the implications of U.S. foreign policy. She has authored over 100 articles; and since 1992, she has moderated the China Forum, a public policy TV program about China.

The Distinguished Graduate award is given to a Butler graduate each year. Kerry Dumbaugh will be the 27th recipient and the 5th woman to receive it. She is a model of excellence in academia and politics, as well as for women. Her intelligence has served to aid in furthering American policy abroad. Due to her many accomplishments, Dumbaugh deserves commendation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join with me in congratulating Kerry Dumbaugh and her family on her receiving the Butler Distinguished Graduate Award for 2006 and in wishing her continued success in all her endeavors.