Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce to this body Major General David Tanzi, the Vice Commander of the United States Air Force Reserve, and to honor him on his forthcoming retirement, which will be January 11, 2006, at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia.

In his duties as Vice Commander, General Tanzi is responsible for the daily operations of the Command, which consists of 76,000 Citizen Airmen, 400 aircraft, guiding 36 wings, three flying groups, one space group, 620 mission support units and two draft

choices to be named later. He manages $20 billion in assets, a $3.9 billion annual budget and has successfully led this command through major transformational changes in force structure and in organization.

General Tanzi is a command pilot with over 4,055 hours in various types of planes. He has been honored with numerous awards and decorations, including two Distinguished Service Medals, two Legion of Merit Awards, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Air Medal.

General Tanzi is a native of New Hampshire and a graduate of Ohio State University. And although he has been stationed throughout the United States in his tenure in the military, we in Utah claim him and his family as our own. Since the year 1993 through 1999, when he was the Commander of the 419th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force in Utah, he has maintained a home in Utah only minutes away from that base.

We warmly welcome General Tanzi and his wife Deb and their new son, Anthony, back home to Utah on a permanent basis. For, indeed, the Air Reserve Command's loss will be my State's gain.

General Tanzi's contributions to our Nation's security, his years of sacrifice on behalf of others, his superior leadership have paved the way for Air Force Reserve excellence and innovations for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, in this chamber, we often hear rhetoric of great praise for athletes, authors and statesman. With great fanfare we announce legitimate accomplishments, Other times the rhetoric is to trumpet our own actions and plans with grand gestures, receptions and press.

An American humorist, Al Capp, once said, ``The man who is not trying to reform the world--will!'' Those who truly change our world are those who labor daily, without praise, to create a better life for themselves and those around them.

Today I would like to introduce the body to a man who is changing the world--not by doing something no one else can, but by doing something of which everyone is capable, but few choose to do. This gentleman is changing the world one person at a time.

Ron Cefalo, is a science teacher at Box Elder High School. He was recently recognized for his outstanding efforts in exciting kids on a regular basis to the world of physical science. That by itself is something not easy to do. The Air Force Association, after a rigorous search, first named Ron the AFA Teacher of the Year for Northern Utah. Later he was also chosen from the regional winners as the Air Force Association Teacher of the Year for the State of Utah.

In his 37th year of teaching, Ron can claim such accomplishments as sending two projects into space on the shuttle and coaching an award winning Academic Olympiad Team. Each year Ron takes students to the annual Utah State University Physics Day at Lagoon, an amusement park in Utah, which competitively demonstrates the properties of physics to 5,000 kids from Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. Earlier this year Ron Cefalo's group took home seven awards in four different categories. Ron also won first place in the instructor competition for Curriculum Development. Utah State physics professor JR Dennison noted, ``Ron has been participating and winning since the inception

of USU Physics Day at Lagoon in 1990. In fact, Ron was one of the participants at a summer workshop for secondary teachers held at USU in 1989 when the idea for a USU Physics Day was founded. Ron has been a tremendous asset to us . . . in connection with the American Association of Physics Teachers' regional activities and as a source of some of the best students in physics here at USU.''

His greatest achievement is his ability to draw students through hands-on projects into his lessons. Even though setting up student lab projects takes extra time, money and effort, it is these demonstrations that shook the school, once literally, and had students clamoring to enroll in his class.

Ron Cefalo knows that the success of a teacher is only as great as the success of his students. As a dedicated teacher, Ron instructs year-round, spending his summers at Johns Hopkins University, working at a center for gifted youth from all over the world. One summer, a gifted, but troubled student from a dysfunctional home intentionally broke a number of items in one of the classrooms. Another instructor considered the boy to be ``too dangerous'' and kicked him out of the class. The Principal, faced with the option of sending the boy home early, asked Ron to give the kid one last chance. Ron Cefalo willingly stepped forward and took this troubled youth into his classroom and taught him without further incident.

As expressed in the lyrics of Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch in the song, ``Every Day Hero'':

Some people have helping hands that go a second mile

They're willing to love and lift a brother for a while

Everyday Heroes live in every neighborhoods.

Everyday Heroes, helping in the way a neighbor should.

Giving just a little time; sharing just a little love.

God bless each one of those everyday heroes.

It was an honor to teach alongside an ``Every Day Hero'' before coming to Congress, and I personally know the commitment Ron brings to his job and the ``helping hands that go a second mile''.

Each of Ron Cefalo's students recognize his uncommon talent for making them personally feel important and realize that they have value and someone cares. Every year Ron helps kids mature and learn. Every month Ron gives of himself for others. Every week Ron creates a learning environment in which kids want to participate. Every day Ron makes the world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, Senator Orrin Hatch of my State has penned words to a song entitled, ``Everyday Heroes.'' The lyrics in part read:

``Some people have helping hands that go a second mile.

``They're willing to love and lift a brother for a while.

``Everyday Heroes live in every neighborhood.

``Everyday Heroes, helping in the way a neighbor should.

``Giving just a little time; sharing just a little love.

``God bless each one of those everyday heroes.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce this body to an everyday hero whose efforts make the world a better place to live. If you think about that in that respect, it is actually quite spectacular. This hero is an outstanding educator at Box Elder High School in Brigham City, Utah; and I had the opportunity of teaching alongside him before I came to Congress. I know from personal experience the dedication he brings to his job, and I know how he helps kids every day.

At Box Elder High School is a charismatic head wrestling coach by the name of Mike Ripplinger. He was recently named the Class 4A Coach of the Year, shortly after leading his team to the fourth State title in 6 years, his fifth overall. That goes along with a record 18 region championships in the 20 years he has been a head coach. In a sport like wrestling, which is very competitive in Utah, that is indeed quite an accomplishment.

The measure of a coach, as our good Speaker well knows, is not based on his success and the wins and losses but the quality of the students with whom he works. More impressive than any

championship title is the impact Mike has had on the wrestlers off the mat, as he has produced not only outstanding athletes but also gentlemen.

On the occasion of hosting the 20th Richardson Memorial Tournament in his tenure, Mike's athletes returned from years past to give him tribute. I wish to review a few of those and also add to those tributes myself.

One of these young wrestlers noted that when he was a junior he broke his sternum not once, but twice. It was very difficult for him to just sit on the sidelines and cheer on his teammates, realizing he could not contribute to the success of the team. Most kids would have just dropped out at that point. Coach Ripplinger, realizing the pain of lack of participation, gave an extra effort to include this kid as part of the team. Through his encouragement, this young student learned how to persevere and, as he later noted, he made many successes in preparation for life that year even though he had no activity on the mat.

Another former student said that the coach expected us to live with dignity, honor and respect for others.

Another admitted that, when they were disciplined, the toughest thing was feeling like we had disappointed the coach because we had all the respect for him as a person and as a leader. All teachers seek respect. Very few of us actually earn it the way Mike Ripplinger has.

Those lessons were as important to the student athletes as the trophies that they earned.

When Mike was hired, his principal said, I wanted a coach who could build a strong wrestling program but an individual who could also build young men. He said this is one of the best hires he ever made. ``On a personal note,'' he also wrote, ``my son Joseph, who has found success in his personal life as an orthopedic surgeon, found out what life was all about from you and your program.'' Even though a three-sport athlete, he had little wrestling skill. Through your program, he found out what it was like to rise above losing. He found the encouragement and desire to keep picking himself up and going on, and from people like you he found out how to succeed.

Sometimes in our environment today we actually do not want people to display any outward religious conviction, but through Mike's demonstration he showed his goodwill, his strong moral character and his relationship with his God.

At one point, when one of his students seriously injured an arm by sticking it through a glass window, one of his other students noted that he admired a coach who was not afraid to have a team prayer for the cut student.

Mike Ripplinger is to be commended for not being afraid to help his students become better people, as well as better wrestlers.

Students of Mike recognize that he has a rare ability to make each individual student feel like he or she is important, has value, has someone who cares. Every year, Mike helps students mature and learn. Every month, Mike gives himself to others. Every week, Mike creates a learning environment in which kids want to participate. Every day, Mike makes the world a better place. Mike Ripplinger is one of our everyday heroes.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity of addressing this body and illustrating a problem that we have, especially in the West. I think that problem can be illustrated best by two charts that we have here.

The first chart, everything that is in blue in this chart is the amount of land that is owned by the Federal Government in each State. The second one is everything that is in red are the States that are having the difficult time of actually funding their own education systems. Those are the States having the slowest growth in education.

Now, I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to realize there is a correlation between the red States having problems funding education and the blue States that are controlled by the Federal Government with all their land. It is not because these red States do not have high taxes. In fact, they have a higher tax than the yellow States. It is not because they do not have a commitment to education; they actually spend a greater percentage of their budget on education than the yellow States. The difference is, we have a cavalier attitude about public lands that we should realize hurts kids and it hurts their education in the West.

Now, there is a solution to it; and it comes with a simple fruit, it is an apple, which stands for the Action Plan For Public Lands and Education. I wish I could say I was smart enough to have thought of it, but it was actually designed by some State legislators working the Council State Governments West that recognized this problem and came up with a solution to it.

There are two bills that we have which can deal with those solutions. The first one would say, all right, take all this blue land and allow the Federal Government to pay property tax on it. If the Federal Government paid the lowest rate of property tax on the land that is owned and controlled by them in the West, in fact, in the entire Nation, they would add another $4 billion every year to the funding of public education. That is a whole lot of money for us to come up with, although you could also look at it as the fact that

the Federal Government prohibits States from raising $4 billion to solve their own problems and fund their own education processes with the way we control public lands.

Now, since that is going to have a difficult time, there is a second bill. This bill is number 3463, which says that this map was never intended to be the way it was supposed to be forever. When the western States, those from Montana down to New Mexico that have all the blue space in there, the Federal land, when they were originally admitted as States, everyone except one had in their enabling act the idea that the land should go to the Federal Government until such time as the Federal Government shall, not might or if or may, but shall dispose of the land, and 5 percent of all of the proceeds were to go back to the States for a permanent education fund to fund their education. To be honest, actually three States did not have that. They said their 5 percent was supposed to go for infrastructure and roads. But everyone was supposed to get something back from the Federal Government.

In the mid-1970s, this Congress changed the rules of the game without consulting these States and passed legislation that said our official policy will now be to keep the land and not pay the 5 percent. What bill 3463 intends to do is say, okay, fine, let them keep the land, except have the States choose 5 percent of the land that is available, and we will take some things off the table, like national parks, monuments, reservations, military installations, things that are not valuable to the States anyway. But of the remaining land that is there, let them choose 5 percent of that land for their own to put it in for the purpose of building education funds in each of those western States.

If these western States could take the 5 percent of their land that is available and couple it with the school trust lands already open to them, they could create amazing economic zones, especially in rural parts of their States, which would not only build the economy, but which would also pay for the education of their kids. Since we are in an energy crisis, much of this land would be dealing with the growth and energy and potential for that growth.

One of the things we have is a cavalier and sometimes a flippant attitude about these lands in the West. I had an administrative official say, Why are you worried about all this land? It is a bunch of useless land where nobody lives anyway, or it is all our land, so we recreate on it. What we have to realize is that this policy has actually hurt kids. The educational ability of kids growing up in the West is depressed because of this land policy.

What we need now to do is to realize that and take constructive efforts to try and change that. Allow the States in the West to have the vehicle and the ability to raise the money to fund their education system in the way they wish to do it, and House bill 3463 would actually do that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that both sides of the aisle

have recognized the need of some modifications in the Endangered Species Act.

I would like to, Mr. Speaker, introduce you to a man by the name of John Gochnauer. John Gochnauer was the shortstop for the Cleveland Indians in 1902 and 1903. In 1902, playing full-time at shortstop for the Indians, he hit a paltry .185 and committed a whopping 48 errors in that position. Nonetheless, he came back the next year to play for them in 1903, where he once again, full-time player, hit .185, and this time set a major league record, which has yet to be broken, of committing 98 errors as shortstop, which means out of every five times, he touched the ball, he booted or threw it away once.

The Endangered Species Act has established 1,300 species for preservation and has been able to preserve 12 of them, giving that act a batting average of .010, if you round up. Whereas John Gochnauer hit .185, the Endangered Species Act is hitting .009, which means the Endangered Species Act is the most inept program we have in the Federal Government. The Endangered Species Act is the John Gochnauer of Federal programs.

The reason is quite simple. The Endangered Species Act creates more harm than it does good. Because if you are a good steward of the land, your practices which create and preserve habitat make you then open to government control and government regulations and produce an attitude of distrust and hatred.

The Endangered Species Act is not there to prevent development or to change land use. It actually penalizes the practices that help in the process, which is one of the reasons why this bill before us recognizes that, and especially in 13(d), a section that is in the bill but not in the substitute. It is there to provide grants to encourage cooperation to solve the problem, not to encourage people running away from the fear of the Federal Government's control.

I think that is probably one of the reasons why this bill is one of those unique bills to come before this body in which a majority of both parties in committee voted to support this particular bill. This bill is indeed one of modifications. It is a modification.

I want to introduce you to one other person. I will call him Jim, simply because I do not want to give the full name. Jim should today be a middle-aged person with a family, running a business, and living a healthy life in California. But in 1995, in California, there was a levee that was in need of repair. On that levee they found 43 bushes. The bushes were not part of the Endangered Species Act, but a beetle who could potentially live in those bushes was, even though no beetle was found in those 43 bushes that grew up on that levee after it was built. Nonetheless, a mitigation plan was mandated, even though the directors of the levee said that it would weaken the levee. Sure enough, 1 year later, that levee broke. Five hundred homes were destroyed and three lives were taken, including Jim's.

Mr. Speaker, the record of the Endangered Species Act over the decades here has been one of jobs lost, of property restricted, of homes destroyed and, sadly, of human lives lost. That is why it desperately needs modification. The bill before us does that type of modification.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to stand here and speak about this particular substitute. As it was brought to the Committee on Rules last night, I noticed that it has been consistently called the ``bipartisan substitute.'' It does have eight cosponsors that are bipartisan. But I would note that the actual bill itself has 95 co-sponsors and it has four times as many Democrats on the bill itself as the so-called ``bipartisan substitute.'' So I would like to speak a bit about the bipartisan bill that is actually before us as well.

I have one of my good constituents, Mr. Child, who bought 500 acres of land and found an endangered species on it. The snail. The problem is not that the snail was on it. The problem is he also had 11 geese, and the Federal Government threatened to sue him at the rate of $50,000 for every snail the geese happened to consume. This meant that the Federal Government went in there and captured all 11 geese, forced them to vomit to find out how many snails were actually consumed by the geese.

This gives us some idea why a small private property owner, as soon as he finds an endangered species, the goal is to get rid of the endangered species. And the problem is not the big guys. The problem is that 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property. Our goal, if we are really serious about trying to preserve endangered species of all kinds, is to get control and cooperation with small private property owners.

The main bill does that by providing a grant program for the cooperation, whereas the substitute eliminates that provision. It puts us backwards to the same old process of trying to threaten and intimidate, which does not work. That is why the recovery rate is so abysmally low with the Endangered Species Act. In fact, it moves us somewhat backwards by weakening scientific standards and creating potential for more litigation.

We have agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which year after year is bankrupt by rampant litigation. This means they have little money and little funds left for actual recovery of species. What we need to do is to make sure that we are engaging the private property owners so that they assist and work in cooperation with the Federal Government. You cannot do that by supporting both the substitute and the main bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The resolution before us provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and makes a good number of important amendments in order and will provide for a full and wide-ranging debate on all the aspects of the Head Start program.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2123 was passed out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously. It reauthorizes the Head Start program for fiscal 2011. At the same time, the bill incorporates a number of wide-ranging and widely supported commonsense improvements to Head Start which will improve teacher education standards, increase the accountability for the use of funds, and enhance outreach to the most deserving students.

The underlying bill does not include provisions which were deemed by some controversial in the base text, such as providing hiring protection for faith-based Head Start providers. Instead, the rule does provide for this and other items to be debated and voted upon separately so that the House may work its will and the final outcome will reflect the views of the majority of the Members, which is an understandable approach.

The Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income and disadvantaged children since the mid-1960s. Today, almost 1 million students are involved in Head Start. The Head Start program is good. In some places the Head Start program is great.

I do not want to be a little bit parochial here, but being well acquainted with those involved in Head Start in my particular area, they do a great job and I am very proud of my association with them. But in each of these situations, the program still could be better. For that purpose, this bill focuses or attempts to focus the academic program more clearly in particular areas. They put greater emphasis on language skills, prereading, premath, and cognitive skills. They insist that any new money above and beyond the funding skills, 60 percent of that be tendered only to teacher quality, which is where that emphasis needs to be.

The Head Start program is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and is accomplished through grants that directly go to applying entities.

The Head Start program has been largely successful because the Head Start program is locally designed and they are administered by a network of 1,600 public and private nonprofit and forprofit agencies at the local level. Because of this local emphasis, educators can tailor their approaches to fill the specific needs of the populations they serve, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that too many other Federal programs, including other Federal education programs, have.

Especially important is this particular thing, that in the text of this particular bill it puts a greater emphasis on tying Head Start programs to a State's curricular standards. To be a priority grantee in the Head Start program, they have to show a pure correlation to a State's curriculum standard. This is for the benefit of the kids coming through the system.

Of increasing specific importance to me is the local tie-in that is demanded by this particular bill. The Head Start

programs have to demonstrate an active support in trying to tie their programs into local school districts. This is essential in the long run if you want to have a smooth transition between Head Start and the local schools. Too often programs running contrary to that simply have a disconnect; and, therefore, there is not local support for these programs. This bill recognizes that is a serious problem and a serious error and attempts to try to bridge that gap by insisting that Head Start programs work closely with their local school districts to provide a seamless entry for those kids going through Head Start into the regular school programs in the States where they are.

The GAO was critical of some financial management standards of the Head Start program. To solve that without losing the purpose of Head Start, which is to help disadvantaged kids prepare for school, they have increased the element of competition within the program. The competition that will be new in this particular program will drive improvements in Head Start; at the same time it will meet the needs of a recommended financial management that the GAO suggested. By looking for and rewarding success in Head Start programs and also looking for and punishing deficiencies in any 5-year cycle, there is an element to try to improve this program, taking a program that is good and great and in every situation making it indeed better.

There are also within this guarantees that there is a guaranteed share of the money that will go to Native American programs, migrant and seasonal workers, the most disadvantaged of the groups that Head Start is trying to help and assist, who will never be placed at a disadvantage in the overall process.

In addition to that, this bill removes certain flawed techniques of evaluation that have been standardly used by the Head Start program and replaces them with something that is more scientifically based.

The rule that is currently before us provides for important amendments and policy discussion, and it is a very fair rule. In addition to a manager's amendment, the chairman of the committee who recommended this bill recommended four amendments, two by Republicans and two by Democrats. The Committee on Rules instead, in addition to the manager's amendment, recommended 11 additional amendments, five by Republicans, six by Democrats.

I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for their hard work in placing this bill before the House; and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule.

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

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

If I could just make a note of the amendments that were not made in order, of the 12, four were defeated in committee. So they did have a hearing in which they were discussed. Two were not germane. One was withdrawn in the committee. One was withdrawn before our Committee on Rules. Two dealt with issues that can be dealt with in other bills and should be dealt with in other bills. One was combined and given preference to a similar bill, and one was a policy issue that we simply said would not be there because it would take money away from the training of teachers, in contradiction with what the bill was trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from Minnesota. I understand her feelings about not being allowed to have an amendment placed in order on the floor. I have been in that situation myself several times.

I would simply point out that the particular amendment to which the gentlewoman refers was offered in the committee itself and was defeated on a bipartisan vote in that committee. It was one of the concepts that we thought was not necessary to replow all old ground over and over again, and that is probably one of the reasons why this particular amendment was not placed in order by the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I share the frustration and understand the gentlewoman from California, as to her amendment not being made in order here. But I once again would point out that the amendment was presented in the committee and was rejected by the committee. And once again, it is not necessary to replow old ground every time the bill appears before the group again. So I appreciate that consideration very much.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for everything we do. If this rule is passed, there will be a 30-minute time and place to discuss the details of the specific amendment which has been referred to several times. I hope saying there is a time and place for that, and I apologize since I am paraphrasing from a faith-based piece of literature, and if it would be more profitable I could say I am paraphrasing from a popular song of the counterculture of the 1960s, and I am sure that would absolve anyone with 9th and 10th Circuit concerns. But let me say just one particular word, and I appreciate the comments that have been made so far.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the rule on if an amendment should be debated, which is far different than actually debating the amendment itself.

Since the minority has jumped over that line and tried to go into the amendment itself, let me say a couple of things about it, and I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas.

I served as a missionary from my church for a couple of years. I am used to people asking me those questions, so if the gentleman has got more, he should. Although when you put the discrimination, if the gentleman put my religion first instead of the end of the line, it would have been nicer.

I also was a school teacher, and I realize in the article the gentleman quoted from the Constitution I was an officer of public office and trust.

What we are talking about here is simply whether a church who is organized should be able to hire Members of their church to work for their church. That is a concept which has been upheld in statute by this body. It is a concept which has been upheld by the courts. Should the State be able to compel a church to hire somebody outside of that church to work for that church: That is the question. Then the issue is once you have decided that, and it has been decided by both the courts and the legislature, can we allow those people to help kids?

What we are talking about is if we can help kids and how best we can help kids. The entire purpose of this act is to try and focus academic efforts to try and make sure that kids are prepared to enter the school system, and are there groups that can help kids. We should not put some kind of artificial barrier in front of groups that can help kids from actually doing that, especially when they are functioning under the rules that we have established and have been upheld by the courts.

This debate is going to be extremely lively during its proper time and place during the debate on the floor when the amendment is presented.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I have always enjoyed his comments in the Committee on Rules, and I have oftentimes agreed with his comments in the Committee on Rules.

I do disagree here about the concept of time and place and when this amendment should be discussed. I would point out that contrary to what we sometimes hear on the floor, the minority's first approach on this particular amendment was to try to ban it and take it off the table so it would not be discussed. That did not pass, and there will be a time for discussion. I am sure when the amendment is actually before us, it will be a remarkable discussion based on what we have had right now on the rule on if we discuss the amendment. But I appreciate very much the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of this piece of legislation; not the rule, but the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, I would remind people that the underlying bill provides for the Head Start program in many different areas. It provides for academic refocusing on class readiness and to close the class readiness gap. It provides for competition to improve the quality and to meet questions of mismanagement of financial abilities. It provides for a closer tie to State curricula and to local ties which will improve it, and it also provides, if the amendment is adopted, for faith-based institutions to actually help kids.

We have an opportunity to discuss 12 amendments plus the underlying bill, and we have an opportunity to hit a home run for kids. That is the goal that we still have.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good and balanced rule, and I urge the Members to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday during the Emmy awards, I realized that one of the most popular new comedies about domestic life in America is Desperate Housewives, and one of the most popular ongoing dramas about domestic life in America is The Sopranos. And even though a majority of Americans still have regular contact with church, one of the few shows that actually shows contact between a family and religion is The Simpsons. Now, it is not my intention to try to bash television shows or Hollywood, but these are hardly adequate or accurate views of America, and this inaccuracy does have policy implications.

If the image of America is derived from the popular culture and not the reality of what America is, it has an impact on our foreign affairs. Let me try to illustrate. In the year 2003, I was part of the Congressional Study Group on Germany and had the opportunity, with others, of representing the United States in Berlin with the German Government, which at the time was, shall we say, not a big U.S. supporter of U.S. foreign policy.

In fact, that particular German Government had just a very narrow election by doing a significant amount of America bashing to get there. But the tone of that government would have been more acrimonious were it not for a senior SPD member, Hans Ulrich Kluse, from Hamburg, who, at considerable political risk, put his reputation

on the line to insist that his government try to make more cooperative pragmatic relations with the United States.

At the time, I wondered why somebody would spend so much political capital to be pro-American, until I also realized that the references he always gave when he was speaking about America were to his experiences in the 1950s as a foreign exchange student in Clinton, Iowa. I also realized his experiences with real American families gave him an insight and friendship that no one can ever gain by watching America as purported by television and the movies.

As I traveled that year as well as last year to Germany, I realized that those places in Germany that are extremely pro-American are those where they have the greatest contact with Americans. And in like manner, where anti-American attitude develops and proliferates is in those areas that have the least amount of contact, which may be one of the reasons why the Ambassador from the United States at that particular time was undertaking a prolonged and expensive initiative to try to increase the contact between Americans and Germans, especially Germans of school age. Such contacts, he thought, were the only way to improve Americans' image abroad and mitigate anti-American attitudes where they may be growing in the future.

In fact, I found one constituent, who did not know my interest in this area, who wrote me. Martha, from Park City said, ``At a time when youth in strategic parts of the world such as the Middle East are confronted with dangerous cultural misunderstandings about the United States, youth exchange programs are uniquely suited to allow young people to experience an America unfiltered by Hollywood. These exchange participants frequently take home an understanding and often appreciation for America's people, society, and values.''

She is right on. Every year we have the opportunity of sending 30,000 ambassadors out into the world. And for 19 years, the host families of those 30,000 potential ambassadors have been receiving a tax deduction of $50, which is nice. But that is why I am happy to have joined with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and nine others to sponsor H.R. 1504, which will change that $50 to $200. That is not enough to cover the expense of host families, but it is enough to encourage families to open their doors so that more kids can have the opportunity to experience an American way of life, which may indeed be the smartest foreign policy decision we could possibly make.

With America and America's way of life under constant attack, both literally and rhetorically, it would be wise to do everything we could to encourage students of the world to experience what this country has to offer, return home, and then watch that influence tend to grow.

If our image abroad is important to the spreading of democracy and to the defeat of terrorism, and I think it is, it is good to get the good kids of the world with those good families in America. And the payoff will be improved foreign policy options and relations 10 and 20 years from now. Such an investment would be wise.

I would urge my colleagues to look at the details of H.R. 1504 and join us in planting seeds that can be reaped to the benefit of American foreign policy in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) giving me this opportunity of sharing a few of the experiences that I had while visiting Israel with the distinguished group this past summer.

I think there are four impressions that I will always take back from my short trip to Israel. The first one is how wonderful it was to be in a place where you saw a specific pro-American attitude from everyone, from the leaders of the country down to the people on the street, with whom you spoke.

Secondly, I have to admit that even though I was in Israel, I felt like I was back in Utah because the topography is very similar. The mountains of Judea, I was right on the Wasatch Front again. Going to the desert was like going to Price, to Moab back in Utah. Whereas in Israel they have the Sea of Galilee that empties into the Jordan River and empties into a Dead Sea, the saltiest sea in the world, in my home State we have Utah Lake which empties into the Jordan River which empties into the saltiest sea in this hemisphere, the Great Salt Lake. So I was back home.

Third, and perhaps for me most important, the ability of buying Dr. Pepper on the market in Jerusalem told me that I was in a country that was purely cultured and progressive, and I was extremely grateful for that.

Finally, I was truly impressed by the size. I think one of the things that we Americans do not realize so fully is how our size has always been a defense. Perhaps as somebody from the West, I recognize that as well, when my county is the size of Rhode Island. Sometime we take size for granted. It is part of our mentality.

But it is very clear in this country where you can go in a matter of hours from the mountains of the Golan down to the desert in Negev, that is not a large area. In fact, it takes me longer to drive from one end of my district to the other end than it does to go through the country of Israel.

When I realized, as you were looking out at the horizon, you will see one mountain top that is Palestinian and the next mountain top is Israeli. And how close they are. We understand that security becomes the major concern of this people. And once again we have kind of a cavalier attitude in the United States about how important security is to those people who live in this particular area. We also understand it is very clear that if there is ever going to be a lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, if there is ever going to be a permanent government between the Palestinians and Israelis in this area of the world, then terrorism has to stop, and that has to be the first and foremost priority.

I think it is wonderful that we have this chance of exchanging ideas and changing institutions. I just gave a speech on this floor a few moments ago about the importance of foreign exchange students and having exchange students understanding American life. Taking it back becomes one of those things that will help us in the future in foreign affairs. I think this is the same way.

There is much that we can learn about the experience of Israel. As we are going through the issues of border security in the United States, there is much that we can learn from how the Israelis have handled that particular situation, much we can learn as far as technology that may be one of those things that can help us in the future.

I was also feeling especially important to be there, as some have mentioned, I think others will as well, to be there at the time of pullout from the Gaza Strip. Nothing, I think, that could ever happen has shown the commitment on the part of the Israeli Government to peace more than that. And everything happened with an ability of doing things in a peaceful and successful way. It showed that even though there was some protest, it was an orderly disengagement. Even though it may be strategic, it was still nonetheless a gamble on the part of the Israelis. It clearly illustrated that the ball is now in the court of the Palestinians and the Egyptians.

I am very pleased that the Egyptians seemed to have moved up and stepped up to take their position in the patrolling of the Philadelphia Corridor. And the amount of troops they have moved in there, though it is still under 1,000, it still is a significant presence. I hope that signals something that will be positive in the future.

It is also significant that the Palestinians have to make a positive response in the future to this particular situation. If they do not, if they simply say that permitting foreign civil war from taking place is sufficient, then they deserve the criticism of the world, for there will be no room for equivocation. Abbas has a choice in here of being a true hero of the future and moving the peace process forward or being a catalyst for the means of world chaos.

I was happy that before I went I also had the opportunity of reading a history of the Six Day War. Once again we sometimes have illusions and misconceptions as Americans. One of the misconceptions is the Israeli Army and the Israeli defense forces are impregnable, they are impenetrable, and they will always win in every situation.

Learning the details of the Six Day War and the places that we looked at when I actually got there, I realized that the victory of the Israelis in the Six Day War had as much to do with luck as it had to do with military ability. There were decisions that were

made on both sides in that particular war, which if they had gone the other way, would have had an entirely different outcome.

That also illustrated one more time how the Israeli situation is indeed tenuous. We cannot place any blame on the Israelis for being so concerned about their security in a land where an enemy sworn against them is so close and has so many terrorist activities, killing over 1,000 people in the last 5 years. With those images coming back there, I am proud to be able to see the people who, perhaps even better than we do, understand the second amendment rights. And we need to fear the bad guys with guns, not necessarily the good guys with guns and people who are doing so much on their own for being responsible for their security and their future.

It was a very positive experience. I think there is much to learn from the good and the determination of our good friends in the State of Israel. It was an enjoyable trip. I appreciate the opportunity of being able to have enjoyed it with my good friend from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, in a prior existence, I spent eight terms in the Utah legislature and 28 years as a

public classroom teacher. And in both of these situations I recognized, first of all, as a legislator, the capacity of the State to fund public education. And as a teacher, I understood firsthand the need for adequate funding of education. And it seemed as if in all cases there was some gigantic blockage that made it impossible for those two needs to kind of coalesce together.

Well, today I am a Member of this august body, I am a member of the Federal Government, and I have identified what I think is that blockage that made it so difficult to bring these two needs together. That blockage is we. It is the Federal Government. It is the amount of land that the Federal Government owns.

Like a dam in a creek that artificially stops the flow of water in that creek, there is a dam on the stream of funds for kids, and that dam is the biggest landowner this side of the Soviet Union: we, the Federal Government.

Let me try and illustrate what I am talking about. If you look at this first map, notice the States that are in red. These are the States that have the most difficult time of increasing their funds and their commitment to public education. And you will notice that these red States are predominately in the West. Twelve of the 15 States with the slowest growth in public education funding are actually found in the West. And it is a significant difference.

These Western States have an increase of around 33 percent in their funding growth of education, whereas the Eastern States have a 68 percent increase in their growth of funding.

Let us try the next one. If you look at the kind of concept of class size, once again if you look at the States that are in red, those are the States with the largest class size. And it is a significant difference, as much as an average of 3 per class in each of those particular States.

Let me try the third one as well. If you look at the need for public education funding, the States once again in red are the States where the need is greatest.

The States in red, those in the West have a 3 percent growth rate in their population going into public education. The East this year for the first time got up to zero percent. They had been the negative number system before that time. So why is this situation where the States in red, those in the West, are always having a difficult time in funding of education? It is not because they do not tax as much.

If you look at the western States, their total State and local taxes are equal to or higher than those in the East. And it is not because they do not have a commitment to education. If you look at the percentage of their budget that goes to education, it is once again a higher ratio almost by .6 percent higher in the West than it is in the East.

If the West is taxing as much, if they are as committed in their budget, if they have the need, yet their class sizes are high and they cannot fund the education that happens to be there, then what seems to be the problem? What is this obstacle?

I happen to think that I found at least a prima facie case for a correlation, and it is land. If you draw an imaginary line between Montana to New Mexico, everything west of that line, 52 percent of that is owned by the Federal Government. Go east of that line and only 4 percent is owned by the Federal Government. Let us try this next map and you will see what I mean.

Everything indicated in blue is the amount of each State owned and controlled by the Federal Government. If you make a correlation with those States having a difficult time funding their educational system and the amount of land owned by the Federal Government, you see an amazing correlation. The problem lies at the feet of the Federal Government. The enormous amount of land owned and controlled by the Federal Government is the reason why those States in the West are basically in the back of the financial bus for education.

Land has historically been the mechanism of funding education by States. The State of George in 1777 was the first State that actually offered opportunities to try to assist those local communities. The State of Connecticut actually sold 3 million acres of land to fund their education system. Of course it was land that was in Ohio which they claimed at the time; but even though it was not their State, at least they were selling something. Close enough for government work.

The State of Texas, you will notice, has very little land owned by the Federal Government because when they were admitted they kept their land; but immediately they set aside 17,000 acres by the State to put in a trust fund to pay for their public education programs and systems.

It goes back to when Henry VIII closed down the monasteries and redistributed the land. One of the conditions for redistributing that land was they would take the traditional role of that monastery land and help to fund the purposes of education.

There are four ways in which land connects with public education funding: through school trust lands, through royalties from land, through the enacting clause promised western States, and, fourth, through property tax.

Let me talk about a few of those for just a moment. Property tax. It is obvious those in the West do not have the property to tax. If you were to change the situation around and simply say four percent of the West should be owned by the Federal Government and put the price at about $525 an acre, that is an average, and up it at the lowest tax rate, this is what the result would be. This is the amount of money that each western State would have additionally that they could raise by themselves to fund public education. My State of Utah would have $116 million. California, $110 million. Alaska would have $782 million, and that is only the portion that would deal with the funding of education.

There is another concept that should be involved here. When every one of these western States was made a State, there was a clause in their enabling language that said the land should be given to the Federal Government until such time as the Federal Government shall dispose of the land.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will come back at another time and review some of these issues with you. But there is a need to recognize the situation in the West. And there is a need to understand that the West is being treated unfairly, and it goes back to this problem of public ownership with the West. At some time, there needs to be a solution to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding such time right now.

This is obviously a time of great emotional sadness for all of us, as we are attempting to help fellow Americans who are in a special need, a special time of need. It is a trying time; and, hopefully, it is one where we can keep focus on the true issue, which is how to get emergency relief as quickly as possible to people who desperately need it.

The rule that is being proposed here, and sometimes in our rhetoric on these rules we kind of go far afield from what the issue is, the issue is still the rule, does not prevent any kind of unanimous consent for more time for more issues to be raised at such time in the future, but it does provide a backup to guarantee that the issue at the end of this day will be decided and that relief money can be moved on without any kind of impediments or Congress trying to add extraneous issues to the debate or discussion, unless there is unanimous consent, obviously, for that.

There is precedent for what we are doing. This is not unusual. It has been done before. It will be done again in the future. It does, though, try to state that there is a time and a place for everything that we do. There is a time to try and pass emergency relief and get that relief moving as quickly as possible, to really hit what is human suffering.

This particular request deals with temporary assistance. It deals with providing temporary housing, money for home repairs, medical, dental costs, repair work, cleanup, ensuring that the firemen get their pay. It is emergency equipment.

Much of the discussion we have heard this morning deals with long- range policy issues. I am not saying they are bad, because that policy discussion needs to take place. It should take place. We need to determine what the city of New Orleans did well and what it did poorly; what the State of Louisiana did well, what it did poorly; what the Federal Government did well. We even need to discuss what the United States Congress has done well and poorly in this particular issue.

But those need to be discussed with dispassion in some way so that when we make broad policy decisions, those broad policy decisions can be made with a clear conscience and clear focus on what the issue really is. That takes regular order, and for some who would like to bypass regular order to quickly pass some of these, we are doing a disservice to long-term policy discussions.

The senior member of the Committee on Appropriations from Wisconsin is someone I have enjoyed listening to. He oftentimes will say those things which ring true. What he wants to discuss is significant, but it needs to be done in the regular order, not on top of this emergency bill; and I am sure that will take place.

Mr. Speaker, I would also be remiss if I did not take this opportunity just to say a few things that are positive. Though I do not know what has been happening throughout the entire world, I do know what has been happening in my backyard of Utah where some of these evacuees are presently residing. I guess the State of Utah took the Jazz; we should also take some of the evacuees at the same time.

In addition to those evacuees who are in my State, the State of Utah is also stepping up. There are in the State of Utah 475 volunteers who have been working since Saturday with these evacuees. They have done everything from having a child care center on site, to providing 6,000 meals, to even having a volunteer life guard manning the pool at the base at which these evacuees are staying. $2 million since Saturday have been donated in Salt Lake City as well; 7,000 people have called asking what they can do. Some of them have been very creative in what they are trying to do.

A Ronna Guidera who lives in Salt Lake City, and actually in Draper, went down there and took trips from the military base where the evacuees are staying into Salt Lake City for sightseeing, for shopping trips.

Steve Gordon had the idea of actually providing as many tickets as he can get to go to the Utah-Utah State game. It may not be what they necessarily wanted to see that Saturday, but it is the best game in town that we have to offer.

People are stepping up from their hearts for this disaster. It is also time for Congress to step up with their hearts and provide the temporary relief, and then use our minds to go back and discuss the policy issues and policy initiatives, but go through the regular order so that we do not jump to conclusions, we do not make mistakes as we go through.

All of these discussions are important, they are there, but the rule at hand is to get emergency relief on the floor to help people right now, and we should not lose sight of that in our efforts to try to expand it into other areas, legitimate discussion areas, but other areas that do not pertain specifically to this point at hand as to how we get that $50 billion to help people right here right now.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's indulgence. I appreciate the time. I support this rule because it is the right thing to do to help people right now and put everything in its proper perspective.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This resolution waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we now have before us the first appropriations conference report. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and those who have been working with him on the House side, as well as on the Senate side, should be applauded for taking this appropriation process and concept of prioritization and presenting the product that we have before us. The Interior conferees have produced a conference report which is fiscally responsible and does live within strict budget discipline. It recommends for the fiscal year 2006 budget $26.2 billion, which is actually below last year's enacted level of $27 billion.

Even though the total number is lower, it still takes into account significant and important and high-priority items, such as wildland firefighting, $2.7 billion; a $61 million increase for our National Parks; a $31 million increase in our National Forest System; and $106 million increase for the Indian Health Service. Indian programs have been represented at a record $5.6 billion, which means the funding will provide for schools and hospitals, construction, education, human service needs, as well as law enforcement there.

With those increases there, it has to be significant, and there have to be offsetting balances somewhere else, and that is where the process of prioritization takes place. Once again, whether you like the total and the way it has been done, at least this committee has indeed done that process of prioritization.

I commend the Subcommittee chairman (Mr. Taylor); the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); the ranking members who were involved in this, as well as all the conferees, for shepherding this measure, this funding measure through the conference process in a timely and orderly fashion in the midst of a very lean budget climate.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report is obviously not perfect; none of these ever are. We are not totally happy with all of the aspects of it. I, for example, still have a concern over our process that we are doing with Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or the PILT program. This House was wise enough to fund that program at $242 million; the conference funds it at $6 million less, at $236 million. That still is $30 million above what the Senate tried to accomplish. This program, for example, is the basic funding for rural communities; it is rent that is due on the land that is government owned. If the Federal Government is going to own the land, they need to be able to fully support that.

Hope springs eternal, and we in the West will continue to work on this program in the future with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and others to make sure that these programs are adequately addressed in the future as well.

In closing, and notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, the overall conference agreement is a good, bipartisan product. It has been done in a timely manner. It is the first one before us. It deserves our support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the discussion that has gone through on this particular bill. We have had it on several different occasions. There are a lot of good things that are in this particular bill.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has mentioned the one portion of the $1.5 billion to solve the hole in the veterans funding area, that once the issue was validated could have been an easy chance for people to grandstand. But I am very proud of this entire Congress in a bipartisan way, who gave instructions in a bipartisanship way, which came as close to a unanimous vote as I have seen here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate step to do, to now take this and then review the process so that we can continue to go on. We have much to do in this particular area, but in each year that I have been here in this Congress, I have been very proud that we have tried to move forward in different areas and make progress to fully fund and fully maintain our commitments.

The same thing has gone on with all of the other programs in this particular budget and this particular conference report. This committee has once again done a great job in trying to come up with the principle that all appropriators ought to be doing a prioritizing program. They have prioritized the programs. Mr. Speaker, overall, we can be very positive of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge the Members to support the rule that provides for consideration of this conference report to the accompanying H.R. 2361, and I move the previous question on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time.

The legislation drafted by the gentleman specifies that the Commerce Department shall ensure that the application of countervailing duty law to nonmarket economies is consistent with international obligations to the United States. Some Members have expressed concern that this legislation would give the WTO special influence over U.S. law. Is that true?

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, and to further clarify, to implement any WTO agreement or a decision of a WTO panel or the appellate body, the United States must enact the agreement or the implementation changes through congressional action?

Is this provision in H.R. 3283, therefore, intended to

change this fact in any way or to impose any new obligations on the Commerce Department or the United States beyond those already set forth in U.S. law?

Therefore, where H.R. 3283 says that ``the Commerce shall ensure that the application of CVD law is consistent with the international obligations of the United States,'' am I correct that Commerce, which administers both U.S. antidumping law and U.S. countervailing duty law, may reach this determination of consistency on its own?

So, does H.R. 3283 require Commerce to take additional steps to ensure consistency?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his kindness and his information.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 379 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This resolution provides for a structured rule and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of Committee on Education and the Workforce, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the minority. This is a good and a fair rule. It allows the House to focus the debate and the vote upon two different approaches aimed at helping America's small businesses to offer health coverage to its employees, and to debate and examine the proper role of the Federal Government in the health care arena.

Amendments not made in order were offered and discussed by the committee, so it is appropriate, I think, not to duplicate that committee action here on the floor.

H.R. 525 is the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005, sponsored by the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and is virtually identical to legislation passed in the 108th Congress, then H.R. 660, which passed this House by a 90-vote margin of 252 to 162. So I commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson); the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for once again moving this bill through the committee process.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 525 is a modest bill. It does not seek to address every aspect of health care in America. It does not seek to mandate Federal control into every aspect of medical treatments. To the chagrin of some of my friends on both sides of the aisle, it does not move our country in the direction of government control and taxpayer-funded universal health care.

What it does do, and this is really the bottom line, is make health insurance more affordable to small business and thereby increase the total number of Americans and families that are insured.

H.R. 525, if enacted, will result in more Americans and more American families being covered by private health insurance, and that is a worthy goal that we should all be working to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that large corporations and unions already enjoy, many through ERISA, the same insurance-risk pooling features and already enjoy the cost efficiencies built into this health coverage package for their workers and their members. This bill, therefore, is about achieving a measure of fairness towards small business, an effort for the mom and pop businesses and industries to be treated the same way as giant corporations and union organizations.

The small guy will have nothing the large guy does not already have, with specific regulations placed in the bill to ensure against unfair pooling practices. It has bipartisan support from a wide range of groups, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of American Business, the American Farming Bureau, Associated Builders and Contractors, the Latino Coalition, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Women Business Owners and the National Restaurant Association, as well as many others.

In the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, there will be many who will be giving facts and figures. I do not wish to go into those right now. But I wish to make sure that this is part of a larger picture.

As politicians, we oftentimes talk about the Nation or issues being at a crossroads. We do that a lot because it is a very dramatic phrase, and it makes us seem more important because we are in the middle of it. But I do believe in the issue of health care and insurance we are as a Nation in the crossroads. We can take one direction which would be to have greater government control, especially on the Federal level which ultimately would lead to a single-payer Federal program where decisions, right or wrong, would be made here.

Indeed, I think the substitute that will be ordered is illustrative not in topic but in spirit of this, where there is greater government control, greater regulations being put in there so that one wonders if the issue is really health insurance or if the issue is control.

The other approach that we are in the crossroads of and could take would be an approach to try and add market forces into the system to try and move some type of reforms along the way. This bill is not a panacea for all of our health care issues; but it is a step for certain groups who are currently excluded, often by well-intended decisions of the government.

I clearly understand both sides of these particular issues. I was a State legislator who did both while I was down there. There were requirements in health care which I thought were good at the time, which I also knew were costly at the time; and I also realize in hindsight, in helping one group of very vulnerable people, we actually hurt a different group of very vulnerable people.

For example, in my State, family health care is covered for everyone until the age of 25. When I joined this august body, all of the sudden the limitation was now at age 22, not 25; and I immediately realized I had three sons who had no health insurance whatsoever. I still have two sons who are out there in that risky group with no health insurance whatsoever.

I clearly realized from personal experience that all the mandates of coverage of health care systems are useless to those who cannot get or cannot afford insurance in the first place.

My oldest son finally got a job with a large corporation. I was very relieved that now he has insurance until a couple of weeks ago when he came and talked to me about joining a friend in an entrepreneurial enterprise, in which case they would start their own business. I should have been excited about his attitude; but the first question out of my mouth was, Well, what about your insurance?

We make decisions here that have far-reaching effects in creating a society of limitations instead of visions as they should be. With all sorts of good intentions, government also has helped create people whose options are shut to them when all they want really is hope and the freedom to choose some kind of options. Sometimes it is a matter of control of those options, which is frightening for any government level to try and give up.

This bill does not try to create mandatory efforts. It tries to create options. It tries to create options from which people can choose. People who are not now covered have a chance to be covered in some way with insurance. Regardless of how one votes on this issue in the past or in the future, this is a fair rule. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the committee who has gone through this discussion many times.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

I must admit that much of the opposition gloom-and-doom predictions are based on assumptions of what people and companies will choose to do and, therefore, the government should make those mandates. I am pleased that this particular piece of legislation is based on the assumption that people have the ability to make good choices for themselves without the assistance of the heavy hand of government.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

I appreciate those who have spoken on the bill today. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the medical profession, who so eloquently talked about some of the realities of this particular bill and what we are looking at. And I appreciate the gentlewoman from California and her wonderful and kind way in which she handled the rule on the minority side.

Just as a means of criteria of what we are going through as far as the rule itself, every amendment that was proposed for this particular rule was discussed thoroughly and voted upon in the committee, with the exception of obviously the motion to recommit. With the debate we have had in previous years, every element of this bill has been thoroughly debated both on the floor and in committee, this year as well as in years past.

I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, my favorite Senator, even though I am not supposed to have one, is the junior Senator from Kentucky who is the only one to have won 100 games in both the American and the National League. Because of that, I have his baseball cards. I hope he does very well over there because if they continue to rise in value, that may be the only way I pay for my health care in the future.

I was reading on the airplane coming back yesterday of a story of Senator Bunning when he was a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers and he was facing the Yankees. The Yankees sent out Bob Turley to be the first base coach because he was great at picking off signals. Sure enough, he knew what the signals were. His signal would be every time a fastball was coming, he would whistle at the batter. Hank Bauer is the first batter up there. Fastball, he whistled, Bauer hit a screamer into left field. The second batter is Tony Kubek. Fastball, whistle, he hit what would have been extra bases into right field except the second baseman caught the ball in self-defense.

The third hitter up is Mickey Mantle. By this time the pitcher is upset with what is going on and takes a couple of steps to Turley and says, ``Next time you whistle, I'm going to drill the batter.'' He takes a couple of steps to the batter and tells him the same thing. Sure enough, a fastball, the whistle, Mantle does not swing. The next pitch is a slider which hits Mantle right in the legs. He is upset, takes a couple of steps towards the mound, but the catcher and the umpire direct him to first base.

The next batter up is Yogi Berra. Once again, fastball, the whistle comes, Yogi does not take it, but then remembering what happened, he steps out of the batter's box, cups his hands and yells back at Senator Bunning who is the pitcher at this time and says, ``He may be whistling, but I ain't listening.''

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who have been whistling at us on this particular issue. Every time I go to a town hall meeting, I face people who want some kind of relief in the ability of getting insurance. I get letters from them all the time. When small businesspeople come to my office, they are talking repeatedly about this particular issue. They are all whistling, asking for some kind of relief.

I realize I talked about my three sons who did not have insurance. My two that still do not will not have it under this bill because the provisions do not allow them to participate. But my next-door neighbor who is trying to make a living in a shop down on Main Street that does not have insurance could under the provisions of this bill. Those are real-life people who need this kind of assistance and help, and they cannot get it any other way. The status quo does not offer this kind of assistance. This is one of those few rays of hope that they will have. These people are truly whistling at us. Our job as Congress is to finally listen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule on the underlying bill, H.R. 525.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.