Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I support this legislation because it will make America safer. Our safety depends upon stability in Iraq.

Now, there are two ways to achieve stability in Iraq. The first is to prop up the present government and hope it succeeds.

That has failed. The best evidence of that failure is from Iraqi leaders themselves. Last weekend, a Shiite Member of Iraq's legislature said, in the absence of enough security forces, authorities should help residents arm themselves for their own protection. The Sunni president of Iraq said, people have a right to expect from the government and security agencies protection for their lives, land, honor and property, Mr. al-Hashemi said. But in the case of the inability of Iraqi security forces, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense.

This government has failed, and we are spending the precious blood of our sons and daughters to prop it up.

The second way to achieve stability in Iraq is to compel a political solution. This resolution will do that. It deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my dear friend and colleague from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to an energetic new Member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to a very thoughtful colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time is left on our side?

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute at this point to one of our very focused new Members, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to a leader on our foreign policy issues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to a former member of our Armed Services Committee, my friend and colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our thoughtful friend and colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, my friend from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a Member of the Ways and Means committee from the State of Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on our side?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to one of our thoughtful new Members from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member of the Ways and Means committee, our friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our friend and colleague, the hard-working new Member from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Mike Thompson, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to one of the leaders of our 30-something younger members, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the chairwoman, my friend from California, for yielding.

The chairwoman and I came to this Congress on the very same day in 1990, and I'm extremely proud of the work she's done on this bill and gratified to support it.

I especially want to thank her for including language that I think will help underdogs, and the chairwoman has been a friend of the underdog for a very long time, and in her work in Sacramento she achieved her visions where tenants who were being mistreated by landlords, where the property was not being properly kept up and was not habitable, would be given the option of withholding rent in order to force repairs on the property. She's taken that provision and extended that principle in this bill in a way for which I salute her.

The bill contains provisions that say in situations where a public housing authority chooses, when notified of serious code violations by a tenant, it may take actions to withhold part of the section 8 voucher payment that would otherwise go to the landlord. And the purpose of this would be to empower the public housing authority under certain circumstances to deduct that amount of money and pay for the repairs.

What does this mean? It means a powerless person who doesn't have a political action committee or a lobbyist or a lot of political power but who needs their sink fixed or a broken window repaired or a heater repaired for the first time is going to have sufficient leverage to do so.

I think this will have three very important effects. First, it will be fair and right for these tenants. Second, it will be fair for landlords. If the tenant is the cause of the problem or if a landlord is acting responsibly, this poses no burden on a landlord. And third, it will help responsible local officials prevent blight and degradation of certain neighborhoods so that each person can live in an environment that's proper and good for their family.

So I want to thank the chairwoman for her characteristic advocacy on behalf of the underdog, for taking this idea, and I would urge support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago my friend from Georgia described buying something he didn't need at a price he couldn't afford. I want to thank him for giving us a perfect description of the last 7 years of the governance of this country under the Bush administration.

We got a lot of things we didn't need: a war in Iraq, a misadventure in Iraq at a price we couldn't afford, $4 trillion in new debt under their watch. We got $12 billion a month in Iraq under their watch.

This is something we do need and we can afford. Higher college scholarships for American students, lower school loan interest rates for American students. And it is paid for, unlike their massive spending increase, unlike their tax break giveaways to the wealthy, this does not increase the deficit by a dollar. We are changing their failed policy of buying things we don't need at prices we can't afford. They should vote for that change today.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I support my friend from Illinois' amendment. Everybody, everybody, in our system is accountable. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. It doesn't matter how you define yourself. When it was convenient for him to avoid scrutiny over the energy bill, the Vice President in 2002 said he was a part of the executive branch and preserved by that privilege. When it was inconvenient for the Vice President to comply with everybody else's requirements regarding classified information in 2005 and 2006, he said he was not part of the executive branch, he was part of the legislative branch.

Under our Constitution, what you call yourself does not define your responsibility. What the Constitution says is your responsibility is your responsibility, even if you are Vice President of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foreign Affairs Appropriations bill passed last week, which included language authored by myself and Congressman Mark Kirk ordering the State Department to report to Congress on the feasibility of

restricting gasoline to Iran. Restricting refined gasoline to Iran is one way to pressure the regime to give up its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Due to economic mismanagement by the Iranian government, this leading OPEC nation now heavily depends on refined gasoline from abroad to run its economy. One Dutch company, Vitol, is the main broker of Iranian gasoline imports and one British company, Lloyd's of London, insures most of the tankers transporting gasoline to Iran.

I have long advocated for economic sanctions against Iran as part of an international diplomatic effort to halt the regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of the United Nations. An international restriction on the supply of gasoline would serve as a critical diplomatic tool to deny Iran the ability to further its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Therefore, I strongly urge the State Department to advocate for a gasoline embargo on Iran as a sanction at the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, who no doubt will oppose this amendment, is a principled and fierce advocate for his constituents. And over the years, the taxpayers of the country have financed the construction of 5,000 miles of roads

which facilitate industrial and community activity in his district which he strongly and understandably believes in.

I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have financed this enough. Since 1982, the taxpayers of the country have expended over $1 billion to finance the construction and maintenance of these 5,000 miles of roads. The economic result of this investment has been an average annual net loss of $40 million a year. I believe that this is not sustainable. Yes, jobs have been created, and this is very important for anyone in anyone's district. But the average cost of this job creation has been $200,000 per job.

Now, this amendment does not say that the existing roads cannot be used. It does not say that the existing roads cannot be maintained. It does not say that the existing roads cannot be used for the purposes for which they were originally intended, for development and commerce. What this amendment does say, Mr. Chairman, is that we will not invest more money in more roads. We will not invest more money at a rate of $40 million a year to extend this system.

For reasons of fiscal good sense, for reasons of environmental good sense, for a precious national resource, I believe that this House should revert to the language which is included in last year's bill and prevent the expenditure of more funds for the extension of this 5,000- mile road system in order to save the public money and in order to preserve this important national treasure.

This is a bipartisan amendment. I am pleased that my friend from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is my cosponsor. It has received bipartisan support in the past. I would respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I do.

I would simply urge the Chair to overrule to the point of order on the grounds that precedent, that identical language was found to be in order in the last Congress.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first appreciate the very respectful manner which our friend from Alaska carried on the debate.

I yield the balance of our time to my friend from Ohio, who is the cosponsor of this amendment, Mr. Chabot.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of our time.

If the gentleman would yield, I, of course, could not commit to a bill I haven't read. But I will say this. If there are sound management environment principles, it's an issue I'd have to take under consideration.

If the gentleman would yield, I would certainly have an open mind to his idea should he introduce such a bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to first thank the gentlewoman, the chairperson, for the funding she has supplied for this program.

I believe we are at a crucial time in the southern part of our hemisphere. I believe that it will go one way or the other in the years ahead. It will either be a breeding ground for violence, trouble, and difficulty; or it will be a breeding ground for the democratic values that will make us safer and stronger and more prosperous. Cuba is not the only country that will influence that decision, but it is a pivotal country. And I think an investment in the long-term process of promoting democracy and prosperity in Cuba is not only in the best interest of the Cuban people but in the best interest of the American people.

Many of the issues that my friend from Massachusetts talked about have been addressed and corrected. But I think the largest mistake that we could make would be to avoid our responsibility and opportunity to influence positively those who wish to bring democracy and the rule of law to Cuba at this very critical time in her history.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this bill and in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important the Record be clear about this endless rhetoric about tax increases. Here are the facts: The budget resolution that was adopted by the House does not raise taxes in this fiscal year or the next on anyone.

When the tax cuts that the erstwhile majority enacted expire at the end of 2009, our budget resolution calls for us to look at the state of the economy, the state of the budget and the state of the situation, and, unlike the erstwhile majority, make a choice as to what to do. There is no tax increase in this fiscal year or the next one.

What there is in this amendment is a strange sense of irresponsibility, that in a world where we are threatened by all kinds of threats and difficult problems, in a budget that is going to spend less than 1.5 percent out of every dollar we spend in improving our relations with countries around the world, that we have an irresponsible proposal like this.

There is no tax increase this year. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting this morning, Friday, June 15, 2007, as I was attending the graduation of my daughter. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: No. 470, No. 473, No. 483, No. 491.

Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: No. 466, No. 467, No. 468, No. 469, No. 471, No. 472, No. 474, No. 475, No. 476, No. 477, No. 478, No. 479, No. 480, No. 481, No. 482, No. 484, No. 485, No. 486, No. 487, No. 488, No. 489, No. 490.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the chairwoman of the committee, and I will support the amendment.

I just am curious as to why, in a process of bipartisan negotiation, the amendment wasn't raised before now; why in a 14-hour markup it wasn't raised before now; why in a rule that made dozens of amendments in order it wasn't raised until now. The chairman of the committee saw the amendment 5 minutes before it was issued. It says a lot about the devotion of the minority to this cause.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, the chairman, for producing an excellent budget for which every Member should vote.

Responsible people do not pay their bills by borrowing from their children. Responsible people analyze what they can afford, spend only that and save what they can.

For too long, this Congress has labored under a culture of irresponsibility: focus on the next election, spend what you want to, hand out tax cuts to your supporters, and let someone else worry about it down the line.

This budget ends that culture of irresponsibility, and it stands for one clear principle over and over again. We will not run this government on borrowed money, period. We wish to double the number of children covered by the children's health insurance program and we will. But when we do so, we will pay for it without borrowing more money.

Most of us absolutely are committed to extending the tax breaks for middle class families that help them survive, but when we do so, we will do so without borrowing more money from the Chinese, from the Germans, and from our grandchildren.

The easy thing to do around here is to spend more, tax less and borrow more. What it gets you is higher mortgage rates, higher car loan rates, more unemployment, more debt and no explanation whatsoever to the next generation in this country.

Today marks a turning point away from the culture of irresponsibility, toward a culture of responsibility for the future of people of this country.

I urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote ``yes'' on this budget.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this bill which I believe merits the support of Members of both parties because it makes three strategic judgements that are very sound and very right.

First, it makes the judgment that the highest priority of the Congress should be the pay, the benefits and the well-being of the families of the men and women who wear the uniform of the country. Together, as Republicans and Democrats, we're doing more in this bill than we've ever done before to serve those needs.

Second, this bill makes the right strategic judgment to deal with the urgent present needs of men and women in theater in the field. Yes, this is at the expense of future systems that will some day aid our competitive edge. And I believe in funding those systems. But the choice we need to make today is the up-armored vehicles, the weaponry, the training, the support for men and women in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the heat of battle today. This is the right strategic judgment.

Finally, this bill decides to take $764 million out of strategic missile defense, still giving the President 91.5 percent of what he asked for, and spending the money on securing loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, spending the money on converting reactors that could be turned into bomb material in the former Soviet Union. These threats were identified as the principal threat to the national security by the 9/11 Commission. This is the right strategic judgment.

For these and many other reasons, I would urge both Democrats and Republicans to vote ``yes'' on this very fine bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in the interest of freedom-loving people around the world to deny the present regime in Tehran access to a nuclear weapon.

The amendment that I submit does not raise the issue of the propriety of Iran having a nuclear weapon. The amendment I submit raises the issue of the propriety of this coequal branch of our government asserting its proper constitutional authority.

My amendment contemplates, Mr. Chairman, the following circumstances, and I want to be very clear about this. If our troops in Iraq become involved in a fight that requires them to in some way engage, in order to defend themselves, Iranian personnel in a given situation, they have the right and power and authority to do so.

Mr. Chairman, if our planners on the military side, as part of their normal planning exercises, as they do throughout the world and around the globe, find it necessary to game out and analyze the circumstances under which we would prepare for conflict with Iran, they have the authority to do so. Any American soldier or servicemember under any circumstances has the authority to defend himself or herself, and the President has the authority to act under emergency or self-defense circumstances. However, in those circumstances under which the President would wish to initiate a major contingency operation in Iran, this amendment says he may not use funds which we have authorized and appropriated to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The amendment asserts the proper constitutional authority of this coequal branch of government. The Constitution vests us, as the duly elected representatives of the people, with the authority and responsibility to decide when this country will initiate hostilities in order to serve our national interest absent an emergency or a self- defense situation. This amendment preserves that emergency authority of the President. It preserves the self-defense authority of the President. But it properly asserts the duly assigned constitutional role of this branch to decide the circumstances under which we should go forward with a major contingency operation.

Mr. Chairman, whether Members believe that we should be more aggressive or less aggressive with Iran, they should support this amendment. Whether Members believe that we should pursue more active diplomacy or a different kind of diplomacy, they should pursue and support this amendment. The question here is not the proper policy with respect to Iran. The question here is the proper allocation of constitutional authorities between and among the branches.

I would urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

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

I reciprocate the respect expressed by my friend, the ranking member from California, and respectfully disagree with his interpretation of the amendment.

In a situation where we would want to interdict IEDs, there are two ways

that this bill makes it clear we could do so. The first is, under all of the other titles of this bill that fund all the other operations of our Armed Forces we would have the authority to do so. And second, such an example is not a major contingency operation in Iran under the contemplation of the bill. So we would absolutely have the ability to interdict the creation or transport of IEDs.

Second, with respect to a hostage situation, rescuing hostages is not planning a major contingency operation in Iran. Nothing would preclude our military personnel from executing such a mission should the need arise, either under this title or under the other titles of the bill.

So as I said in my opening remarks, it is clear to me that under emergency or self-defense circumstances, there are no limitations whatsoever. What this amendment does is to properly assert the constitutional authority of this coequal branch of government that if this country is to initiate hostilities, is to conduct a major contingency operation in Iran, the President must come to this body and ask for our permission.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a healthy, robust debate on this question, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and neighbor from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and I thank him for his decisive and quick action in dealing with the problem of protecting our servicemembers and employees and visitors to our military bases. I am proud to join with him in this amendment.

At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlewoman for raising this important issue. I assure the gentlelady that I recognize her concerns about the specific military installation in her district and do not want this legislation to cause hardship on its surrounding communities.

I am aware of the extraordinary burden that this requirement could impose on residents of rural and remote areas of southern Arizona. I look forward to working with the gentlelady to find an appropriate accommodation.

Reclaiming my time, I again thank Mr. Skelton, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Saxton for this, I think, excellent effort to improve upon a very real problem that we saw in acute relief last week in New Jersey. I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

My friend from Florida a few minutes ago talked about a threat over the horizon. He is right, it is a threat, and it's over the horizon. This bill takes, to deal with that threat, for every $100 the President asks for, we give them $91.50 to deal with that threat.

We allocate that money in this way. We say for the technologies that are robust and mature and working, let's do more of it to protect us better and sooner. But for the technologies that are untested, let's test them and see if they work.

Now, what do we do with the $8.50 per $100 that we do not put into these untested technologies? We find what the 9/11 Commission has called the grave immediate threat to the country. A grapefruit-sized quantity of loose nuclear material, if made into a bomb by a terrorist group, could create a Hiroshima-type explosion in Times Square in New York City, or at the Washington Mall here in this city.

The administration is on a path to convert reactors that have that loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union to get them all done in the next 14 years. We don't think that's good enough. So we take the money and speed it up so those reactors will be converted and shut down sooner. That threat is not over the horizon. It is here today.

That is where we should be spending our money, and that is why this amendment should be defeated.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I oppose this amendment because I believe its provisions subvert the best hope for stabilizing Iraq and ending the Iraqi civil war. I believe that if the responsible Sunni and Shia leadership in that country believe that it will become their responsibility to reach a political settlement to the end of the civil war, they will do so. I believe they will never accept that responsibility if they believe that the presence of the United States is permanent and indefinite.

I think, as the base bill does, that making a statement that we do not wish to have permanent bases in Iraq supports this theory, and will bring about a greater probability of stabilization of Iraq and an end to the Iraqi civil war.

So I believe the amendment sends precisely the wrong message and I oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered in accordance with the modification.

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

One of the key determinants of the country's economic prosperity in the future and our ability to become less dependent upon imported fuel from around the world is our ability to develop alternative renewable fuels.

One of the most powerful tools at our disposal is the purchasing power of the Department of Defense. Presently, the Department of Defense spends in excess of $3 billion a year to buy electricity.

The purpose of this amendment is to codify a practice that the Secretary of Defense has already initiated, which is to increase the percentage of electricity purchased by the Department of Defense from the 9 percent, which it presently is, up to 25 percent by the year 2025. In order to do this, we believe that the Secretary of Defense should have flexibility. So the amendment provides that if the Secretary in his or her judgment believes that defense and security goals of the country would be in some way impaired by meeting this target, then the Secretary is authorized to waive this target.

We believe that with the adoption of this amendment and of these goals, we would generate a $15 billion market in the purchase of electricity generated by renewable fuels. We further believe that the entrepreneurial capacity of American scientists and entrepreneurs would generate products that would help fill this need. Once those products are available, they would then be widely available to the commercial and nonprofit and public sectors to help us greatly reduce our dependence upon nonrenewable fuels generally, and imported nonrenewable fuels specifically.

I would ask that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield.

That is correct. The amendment, as I would have wanted it drafted, would not have had that restriction in it. However, I was required to include it to avoid a point of order for direct spending.

If the gentleman will further yield, that is certainly correct.

I know just how beneficial these authorities are to the Department, and I do not want my amendment to prevent the Secretary of Defense from using these tools to continue to improve energy efficiency and renewable energy use in the Department of Defense. My intent is simply to set firm requirements from what I believe is a responsible energy policy for the Department of Defense.

If the gentleman would yield, I would gladly work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I want to thank the ranking member of the committee for his great cooperation on this, and obviously our chairman for his help, and extraordinarily fine staff work by the majority staff and the minority staff for which I am very grateful, and also the men and women at the CBO, and my own office, Mr. Luke Ballman, for his hard work on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Student Loan Sunshine Act. This bill helps to ensure that parents and students have access to all student loan options available to them in order to make the best informed decision.

Some key improvements include providing students information on all federal student aid opportunities through a new ``one-stop'' link on the Department of Education website. This will allow students to have access to all lenders of their choice, and not feel limited with preferred lender list. The bill also requires institutions disclose all relationships with lenders and protects students from aggressive marketing practices.

The student loan industry has been under intense scrutiny recently and it is our obligation as Members of Congress to promote open and honest leadership. I applaud Chairman Miller for developing a strong piece of legislation that will help restore trust in the student loan industry.

Access to affordable and quality education is a key element to this country's future. As a cosponsor of the Student Loan Sunshine Act, I encourage my fellow colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank those involved in this bipartisan effort for a commonsense idea. I would especially like to thank my new colleague, Ms. Shea-Porter from New Hampshire, who has shown great interest in the volunteer fire service; Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, who wrote the FIRE Act; the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl), who has long been interested in this issue. I would also like to thank Mr. Matthew Riggins of my office for his participation on this matter.

Here is what the bill says. If a volunteer firefighter or EMT is called to a national emergency as declared under the relevant statutes and that volunteer responds to a call, not self-volunteers but responds to a call, that person should have protection when they go back to his or her job. They shouldn't be fired, they shouldn't be disciplined, they shouldn't have their pay docked for up to 14 days in each calendar year.

The service that is performed by our volunteer firefighters and EMTs across this country is enormous and enormously important. We believe that none of those individuals should have the burden of suffering problems at work because of their voluntary spirit. Again, one cannot self-volunteer. Again, the emergency must be sufficient in scope for a Presidential declaration.

We believe this makes good sense, and it is a good bipartisan issue, and I urge Members of the House to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I now yield to a new Member who has shown a real affinity for and commitment to these issues in her short time here, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the author of the FIRE Act.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I did want to thank personally thank the ranking member of the full committee, who is co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus, for his support and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, for his enthusiastic support for this amendment.