Floor Statements

I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and also appreciate the gentleman for heading up this special order tonight to once again point a finger and a focus on the importance of the discussion of energy. And more important than that, to actually move some legislation through this House before we go into a recess during the August break.

I will be brief because other colleagues would like to speak.

I come, as I said, from the State of New Jersey. This past week I had an opportunity to be on some forums with some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle where this was an issue that was discussed. One of the points that I made, coming from the State of New Jersey, is just how important it really is that Congress do something with regard to energy and the high price of energy production and supply in this country.

Let me give you a few statistics from an independent source describing the State of New Jersey and our costs of energy. New Jersey consumes 3.4 percent of the Nation's energy. That is 13 percent greater than what the State's share should be based on the State's share of the Nation's population and employment. And that is possibly because New Jersey is one of the most densely populated States. It has been a manufacturing State and otherwise, and for that reason we do draw a high amount of energy for our State.

Currently the State of New Jersey spends nearly $130 million annually on energy for its various State facilities alone, not talking about private and everything else out there.

Furthermore, an economic survey points out that New Jersey business owners reported that many are concerned, and this is obvious, over rising energy prices. Forty percent of business owners state that over the next 6 months, higher energy costs will have the greatest impact on their business, up sharply from around 20 percent last fall. And because of the higher cost of energy, 43 percent of New Jersey business owners plan to pass along that portion of the cost in the form of higher selling prices to their customers, up from around 30 percent last fall.

So that means on top of the fact that we in New Jersey are paying more at the pump, and on top of the fact that home heating costs will go up dramatically in the area of fuel oil. As a matter of fact, the statistics on that are that New Jersey relies more heavily on petroleum and natural gas for home heating, with 86 percent of single-family homes heated by natural gas and oil compared to the national average of 68 percent.

I raise that point to point out that in my little forums that I was on with other Members from the other side of the aisle, they said, look, we really can't drill our way out of this. Petroleum is not the solution. Natural gas is not the solution. Conservation and alternative fuels are the solution. Well, I half agree with them. I half agree with them because yes, conservation is certainly one of the solutions; and alternative fuels is certainly the other solution. But it is really a three-legged stool as opposed to a two-legged stool, and that third leg of the stool is additional production of energy here at home in America.

Why this is a controversial topic in the State of New Jersey is because we are a coastal State. I enjoy the New Jersey shore as much as the next guy from New Jersey; and hopefully I will have some time to enjoy the Jersey shore sometime during this August break. But while you sit on the Jersey shore, and this is something that the gentleman from the other side of the aisle whose name shall remain nameless at this point, was factually incorrect about.

As you sit on the Jersey shore, if we are successful as Republicans in this House, and that is to pass legislation as the President has just lifted his executive order just 48 hours ago to allow for drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, which means deep-sea exploration, and I always say offshore is a misnomer because offshore means you are sitting on the shore and actually seeing it. And that is what my colleague on the other side of the aisle said. He said if we build these rigs, you will be sitting on the shore enjoying your pretzel and your soda and seeing them. That is factually incorrect.

Every piece of legislation that I have supported, and I know the gentleman from Georgia has also supported, has said that we will be doing deep sea exploration, using 21st century technology in the most prudent and environmentally sensitive manner as you can possibly do, and they will be, at the minimum 50 miles, and a maximum up to 200 miles offshore. We all know that if you sit on the Jersey shore, you can't see any further than 20 miles out to sea because of the curvature of the earth. The bottom line is whatever we pass here, it will not be seeable from the Jersey shore. It will not have that detrimental effect on the shore nor on one of our biggest industries, which is tourism in the State of New Jersey.

So I am proud to be one of the few Members of this House from the New Jersey delegation to say that we must do everything possible to bring down the cost of energy for our small businesses, our industry, and our homeowners, for the price of gas in the summer and home heating fuel in the winter, and we must do that by conservation, alternative fuels, and more production of American energy here at home as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding artistic talents of high school students from around our nation who have participated in the 2008 Congressional Art Competition: An Artistic Discovery.

For the past 27 years Congress has had the distinct pleasure of hosting this nationwide competition. I am very proud of the students who have participated in this competition, and I would like to specifically recognize the finalist from each of the four counties that make up New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District: Kaitlin Surdoval of Warren County, Megan Dreisbach from Sussex County, Kaitlin Cibenko from Passaic County, and Megan Sherlock from Bergen County.

Of these four finalists, Kaitlin Surdoval placed first for the entire district. Her outstanding artistic talent is truly remarkable and I am proud that her art will be displayed for the upcoming year here in our nation's capitol, representing New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District.

I am also pleased to recognize the hard work of the Art Societies that have been so instrumental in the organization and judging of the Competition in my district: the Sussex County Art Society, the Sussex- Warren Art Society, the Ringwood Manor Art Association, and the Bergen Museum of Art and Science.

In addition to the tremendous support of the art societies, citizens and businesses around the fifth district have been wonderfully supportive of the Art Competition and Kaitlin Surdoval. I would like to recognize James McCracken of the House of the Good Shepherd, Michael Alfone from the Borough of Ramsey, and Sal Risalvato of the New Jersey Gasoline-C-store-Automotive Association for their generous donations to assist Ms. Surdoval with her travel to Washington, DC for the celebration of the culmination of this year's Competition.

I am very pleased to be able to support this Competition which brings together so many citizens of the Fifth District to celebrate our talented youth.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the Knights of Columbus of Dumont-Bergenfield St. John's Council, No. 1345 on their Centennial Rededication. St. John's Council No. 1345 is the fourth largest council out of 300 councils in my home State of New Jersey.

Chartered on June 28, 1908, this council has been serving our community while faithfully upholding the Knights' founding principles of charity, unity, and fraternity. As a fraternal and charitable organization, part of the world's largest lay Catholic organization, the St. John's Council No. 1345 has given over $1.2 million dollars and has provided over five hundred thousand hours in service to those in need. This group is to be commended for providing 100 years of funding and manpower not just locally in northern New Jersey, but also in service to charitable activities nationally and globally.

As the St. John's Council No. 1345 gathers to mark their centennial year, I rise in tribute and to say thank you for their contribution to making north Jersey such a fine place to live, work, and raise a family.

I appreciate the gentleman for hosting this special hour tonight and also very much importantly for all of your work all over the years on this very important issue.

And this issue really does strike at the heart of my constituents back in my great State of New Jersey whether it's from my home County of Sussex County, where over 60 percent of them have to commute out of the county every day by car, or Warren County or Bergen County where a host of so many commuters are being hard hit by this hard energy crisis that we're facing right now.

I join with my friend from Tennessee where--I don't come to the floor to blame anyone because the American public simply wants the Congress to come up with answers to the problems

that we are all facing back in our district.

And I think really when you get right down to it, it's not that complicated in one sense to take a look at the various policies or ideas out there. It's easy, I think, one way to tell whether a good-- whether a policy is a good energy policy or not. All you have to do is look at three things: supplies, cost, and security.

A good energy policy is a policy that will do what? It will give you more energy. More supply. A bad energy policy will give us less supply. A good energy policy is one that will lower costs for Americans. A bad energy policy is one that is going to continue to raise or escalate costs, meaning that American families are going to have to have less money for their food, housing, education, and so on. And thirdly and finally, a good energy policy is one that will make us a stronger, more secure America. A bad energy policy is going to be one that makes us less secure, less independent of foreign, unstable regimes like Venezuela and overseas and Saudi Arabia and places like Russia and the like.

So why don't we take a minute to see what has, quite honestly, the other side of the aisle proposed for us. I have in my hand right here, the Democrat plan to lower gas prices. You may recall that when Democrats were campaigning for the 110th Congress, they said that they had a commonsense solution to lower the price of gasoline and energy for the American public. And we are now 18 months, I think, into the 110th Congress. And, well, there is absolutely nothing in the Democrat's plan.

Their commonsense solution, and that's why we're so eagerly awaiting it, and that's why we, on this side of the aisle, come to the floor every night to hammer home the point that something must be done. But we can look to see what has occurred over the last 17 months, 18 months of the 110th Congress now that the Democrats have been in charge of dealing with energy. On these three points: on supply, on cost, on security.

On supply. As I stand here tonight, as was already indicated from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf where our energy supply comes from, natural gas principally, but oil as well, it's basically locked up off limits to us for further exploration even determining what is actually out there. There was legislation to do that just to say what's out there. Let's find out the information. Off limits to us.

Deep sea exploration. Over 100 or 200--200 miles off sea totally off limits right now. Eighty-six billion barrels of oil, 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could be at our disposal to give us greater supply, but it's not.

Oil shales In the Midwestern part of this country. Oil shales were reported in the paper just today as it was going through committee and will be coming to the floor later on, proposals to keep that off-limits as far as greater supply for the country.

Let me give you some quick little number here. U.S. has two trillion, that's with a ``T,'' two trillion barrels of oil that effectively are involved here. And to put that in perspective, from 1859 from the first days that oil was pulled out of the ground to today, one trillion barrels of oil has been used. And we have basically two trillion barrels over there that we could basically be getting in economically viable ways.

Supply has not been addressed, unfortunately, during the 110th Congress by the Democrats.

Costs. Well, when they were campaigning for office, I know in my district you could buy gasoline for $1.80. Now, of course, it's up to $4, doubling the price, and that's hurting the American family.

What else has occurred during these last 17 months? Four times legislation has come through this House that would raise taxes on energy costs. And who actually pays those taxes at the end of the day? You and I do at the pump or any other ways where we buy our energy.

And finally, there are still proposals, believe it or not, from the other side of the aisle that want to put more taxes on us like 50 cents-a-gallon gasoline taxes has been proposed by Chairman Dingell. So the next time you go to the pump and you're paying around $4 bucks per a gallon of oil, just remember the other side wants to add another 50 cents; and there is another proposal for a nickel as well by Chairman Oberstar. So 55 cents more if they have their way in taxes.

Finally on security. Well, right now this country imports around 63 percent or is dependent upon foreign oil. Places like Saudi Arabia, places like Venezuela, places like Nigeria where they have so many problems, Down south in South America as well; and that number continues to grow for the reasons I have just stated.

Gasoline. We have not built refineries in this country so now we are like many countries across the globe. We have to import gasoline, 10 percent of our consumption of gasoline is coming into this country, which makes us a less secure Nation because we do not have our own supply of refineries right here at home.

Let me move off of what we're doing here on the floor to an outside source to look at this. And the Investors Business Daily has taken a look at this issue. And what they said is this. They said just going back a couple of years, under the eight Clinton years alone, U.S. oil production declined 1.3 million barrels per day, or 19 percent, while our foreign imports increased 3.5 million barrels a day, or 45 percent.

During President Clinton's time, he vetoed legislation that would have increased legislation that would have increased production of our own vitally needed oil supply, not only for Americans but for our national defense emergencies as well.

The article goes on to say--it poses this question. So were the Democrats and Members of Congress together merely short-sighted with only a few having any real business experience, or were they just ignorant about economics, the fact that the law of supply and demand determines the price of oil commodities such as oil, steel, copper, and lumber? Or were they utterly irresponsible and incompetent in their actions that led us to become dangerously dependent on increasing oil imports from foreign companies? We think, it says, we think it was all of the above.

The unintended consequences of the Congress Members' poor judgment and meddling micromanagement of U.S. energy policy is that they actually hurt most of the people that they profess to help: the average American consumer, lower-income workers, and those in the inner cities who can't afford an extra $100 a month to drive to and from work.

So that, ladies and gentlemen, is the dilemma we face here in the 110th Congress on a proposal, on plans that do not address supplies, costs, and energy. And that is why I so commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the solutions that he's offered over the years as well and his legislation that goes to the issue of supply to increase the amount of energy that the American consumer can attain, to lower the cost of energy for the American family so that they have more disposable income for other needs, and to increase national security to strengthen America to make us more independent of these volatile countries.

And with that, I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, today, the Woodcliff Lake Police Department will hold its D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony with the students of Dorchester School. The young people participating in this important program have made a commitment to say no to drugs, underage drinking, and gang violence. They have done this with the support of their principal, John Fierro, Chief of Police Anthony Jannicelli and D.A.R.E. officers Chad Malloy and James Foley.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., began as a small program in Los Angeles in 1983. Today, it is implemented in more than 75 percent of our Nation's school districts and in more than 43 other nations. This program allows children to defeat the

negative cultural influences that they are challenged with daily by opening the lines of communication between law enforcement and youth and empowering them with confidence and courage to say no to drugs.

I am proud of the young boys and girls who participated in this program in Woodcliff Lake, and I would like to recognize them all for taking this step toward positive citizenship:

Christopher Acciardi, Nicole Alberta, Naseeb Ally, Max Aronson, Maryanna Arundel, Noah Bardach, Albert Barragan, Alexis Bernstein, Zachary Bernstein, Christopher Blake, Nicholas Bonnett, Alexandra Castiel, Marc Castrillon, Karen Choi, Ellen Drennan, Matthew Evans, Mackenzie Evans, Brandon Fazal, Rachel Fisher, Brandon Friedman, Keith Gliksman, Michael Goldstein, Ian Groh, Erica Grunfeld, Alexandria Guo, Karin Hadadan, Ashley Hahn, John Henrich, Gianna Hroncich, Ari Jigarjian, Brigitte Josephson, Avantika Joshi, Senyoung Kim, Chelsea Kirnum, Kathryn Klecanda, Katarina Kokkosis, Saniya Kumar, Morgan Landman, Justin Lane, Adam Lefkowitz, Brett Levine, Hanna Levy, Sophia Logothetis, Tomasso Lombardi, Chloe Mann, Brian Marolda, Samantha McGovern, Kayla McGraw, Alexander Meleniak, Celine Mileham, Vernice Miller, Nicole Miller, Daniel Miller, Cole Moran, Melissa Nachbaur, Vicky Patel, Thomas Patire, Jordan Perez, Noah Personette, Alex Pettie, Lianna Port, Austin Rahmin, Richard Rebori, Peter Rubenstein, Rachel Samitt, Mihir Sangoi, Maximillian Sarbu, Devin Sargent, Maya Scharf, Alexa Schecter, Connor Schultz, Kyle Schultz, Shunpei Seki, Isabel Sella, Julia Shin, Jacqueline Skene, Alana Smolinsky, W. Maxwell Song, Margo Spector, Constantine Stavrianidis, Alexander Todfield, Sere Tonuzi, Natalia Torres, Christopher Toto, David VanPelt, Apoorva Vasireddy, Harrison Weinfeld, Noah Winston, Rachel Yannelli, Vincent Yannelli, Josephine Yao, Christopher Zariello.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise today to voice my opposition to the underlying bill, as well as the underlying unfairness that's contained in it. But before I speak about Title I, which does contain the opportunity to use taxpayers' dollars to insure up to $300 billion worth of new mortgages to bail out the Nation's banking industry and homeowners, those who made irresponsible decisions, I want to briefly discuss other parts of the bill.

The chairman has been routinely criticizing the administration for failing to do anything, he says, to address the current housing problems facing the Nation, but you know, this administration has been calling for the last couple of years for FHA reform and new regulations for the GSEs. However, the new Democrat majority in the House and the Senate has been unable to pass these important measures.

You know, when you think about it, who knows how many people we could have already helped to stay in their homes and keep out of foreclosure if the Democrat leadership would have only forged an agreement already and passed those previous bills.

It is unfortunate that due to the refusal of the distinguished chairman and others in the majority to temporarily forego some of their pet projects, such as the housing slush fund for ACORN and La Raza and others, that these two important reforms have been held up now for the last year-and-a-half.

And now, with this new housing omnibus bill before us, the chairman has once again refused to compromise, I say, in good faith with the administration or the minority side and has included such pet projects once again.

And as an indication of the majority's unwillingness to substantively compromise, the administration has issued a veto threat to this bill.

Over the last 6 months, the administration and HUD have been working on a program, the FHA Secure. It's to try to help American families who are in the right house but maybe not in the right mortgage to stay in the house. And this program has recently been expanded upon and has to date helped thousands of Americans to be able to stay in their homes.

But now our distinguished chairman and Democrat leadership are proposing a plan that is really financially risky. It rewards irresponsible behavior and it mandates a loosing of FHA underwriting standards, and this is important, that would put taxpayers on the hook.

So, when the chairman put together what I say is an ill-conceived plan, he noted originally that it would help up to 2 million homeowners. Well, unfortunately when CBO scored the bill, they determined it would only help 500,000, and that's the same amount they have oft criticized the administration plan is projected to help. So you'll excuse me if I find it a little hypocritical here that those who believe that the administration's plan isn't going to provide adequate help to struggling homeowners but that this new plan, which is forecasted to help the exact same number of people, is somehow the perfect cure-all.

Now, the bill before us for consideration goes much further than this. This bill actually pays people to stay in their houses. It would give every homeowner who was in trouble and participates in this program a 10 percent equity stake in their home. Normally, depending on the specifics of your loan, it could take you or I 3 or 4 years for a homeowner to make enough payments for you to get a 10 percent equity stake. Now under this bill, we're just going to give those people who are having trouble making their payments. You know, I know things are bad in the mortgage markets right now, but are things so bad that we actually have to pay people to stay in the houses?

Where is the fairness in that proposal? The distinguished chairman acknowledged during the committee consideration that maybe this bill isn't fair in that sense. What about the person who has been patiently sitting on the sidelines over the last several years, saving up, waiting for these unsustainable high housing prices to come down to reality, come down to earth? They've been paying their rent every month, building up no equity whatsoever. What about those people? We're now rewarding someone else who has undertaken an irresponsible loan and bought something, frankly, they just couldn't afford.

What about the person who took out a loan 3 years ago and he's been scraping by, struggling just to get enough money from every paycheck to paycheck to afford their mortgage and, I say, attain their 10 percent equity over 3 years? Now, again, with this bill, we're just giving that equity away to people who didn't save, didn't decide they would live within their means.

Some say the reason this provision is needed is that it will encourage people to stay in the houses. I believe, quite frankly, the possibility of being kicked out of your house is incentive enough to try to stay in your house. I don't have a problem with trying to help people, and this side of the aisle is trying to do it as well, to stay in their homes, but I do have a problem with facilitating arrangements in which they are given a 10 percent equity in their home with a mortgage that is insured by the Federal Government, and that means the American taxpayer.

Our distinguished chairman was quoted in the paper the other day, ``We have done as much as possible to respond responsibly with the public policy.''

However, the legislation before us completely disregards borrowers' payment histories and credit scores when considering eligibility for this program. Borrowers could have missed the majority of their monthly payments over the life of the loan, yet these borrowers would still be eligible for a government-backed mortgage--and taxpayers would be on the hook. An amendment was offered during the committee process to rectify this and it was soundly defeated by the Democrat majority party.

I have also heard a number of members on the other side of the aisle mention today their concerns about the Federal Reserve bailing out Bear Stearns to the tune of $29 billion. However, none of the members complaining or any democrats for that matter choose to sign onto any of three letters I and a number of my Republican colleagues sent to Chairman Frank, Secretary Paulson, and Chairman Bernanke noting our strong concern.

For the last 17 months that the Democrat majority has been in charge, the Administration has been asking for a number of housing reforms from Congress, none of which have been delivered. Now, they want to say the Administration has idly sat by and watched as the housing turmoil has continued to increase, while it is actually the Democrat congress that has yet to pass significant housing reforms that could have provided the Administration with the much needed tools to begin easing us out of this housing downturn.

The Chairman states that this a grand compromise between the different groups involved in the discussion, but the only compromise I can see is the one between he and his party, the big banks who made unsound loans, and the special interests and trial lawyers that stand to benefit.

Would the gentleman yield?

Just for one question. With regard to your initial comment with regard to the FHA reform and the GSE reform, my comment saying that it hasn't been done, isn't it true that we're 17 months into the year under Democrat leadership? Have those bills passed this House and have those bills made it to the President's desk?

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Chairman, I come to the floor optimistic inasmuch as I have heard, I think, where maybe five or six Members on the other side of the aisle raised the issue of exactly what transpired with regard to Bear Stearns and that circumstance some 2 months ago. I come optimistic but at the same time somewhat perplexed because, as I say, this did occur with regard to the Federal Reserve some 2 months ago, and immediately thereafter my office contacted the full body of our committee, both Republicans and Democrats, saying should not our committee be investigating what transpired there? And we extended a hand to the other side to say let's do two things: First, let's contact the Federal Reserve and Secretary Paulson to raise the issues that are now being raised at this belated date by the other side of the aisle. We came through at that time with a list of upwards of nine pertinent questions, questions such as, the SEC states that it monitored Bear Stearns' capital and liquidity positions on a regular basis and that levels of both capital and liquidity appeared adequate right up into the week of March 11, but given the subsequent rapid deterioration in Bear Stearns' financial condition, does the SEC have the capacity and authority it needs to assess these risks? Secondly, why wasn't the loan made in a traditional manner? If, as stated in President Geithner's testimony to the Senate Banking Committee that the Federal Reserve did not have the authority to acquire interest, what authority does it have now?

These were the questions that we were posing that should have been answered several months ago. We extended the opportunity to the other side at that time to join with us in this letter to make this investigation. Oddly enough, at that time no one on the other side of the aisle found a need to do so.

Also what is odd with regard to the investigation in this matter, the committee of jurisdiction looking into what the Federal Reserve did would be the Financial Services Committee. Once again, our side of the aisle suggested to the chairman that we should be delving into the issues that the other side is raising tonight, belatedly. We extended the opportunity to send a letter to Chairman Frank, with signatures of most Members on our side of the aisle to the chairman, saying should we not be looking at these issues, these nine issues that I just referenced before to the Federal Reserve and also Paulson? Should we not be looking into this in Financial Services? Two months ago no one from the other side of the aisle saw it as pertinent. Tonight, as we go into it here and from the rhetoric that comes to the floor, they all say that they are interested in examining what the Federal Reserve is doing.

That's why I say I come to the floor optimistic and a little bit happy because now I believe that when I leave the podium tonight, I can go to the other side of the aisle and I will be more than happy to do two things: To make an addendum to our questions to Secretary Paulson and the Federal Reserve and to make an addendum to Chairman Frank to say that in both cases we should be investigating it and that we would ask that Chairman Frank schedule hearings forthwith, immediately, so that we can go into the matters that you are raising and that I have raised as well to see what authority the Federal Reserve has to conduct these activities.

Madam Chairman, actually at this time I'd just like to put into the Record the letter that was signed by Members from our side of the aisle to Chairman Frank back on April 7, which would have been a month ago now, requesting an expedited hearing with regard to the Financial Services situation with regard to the Federal Reserve and the Financial Services hearing. Also, I will put in the Record a letter dated April 16 to Secretary Paulson from the Department of Treasury and Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve as well, itemizing the nine particular questions with regard to their authority and activity; and also the letter in response dated April 14 from Chairman Barney Frank with regard to not setting forth a date for any hearing going forward.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 7, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank: We are writing to respectfully request

you hold a hearing of the full Financial Services Committee

regarding the recent collapse of the investment bank Bear

Stearns and the subsequent actions taken by the Federal

Reserve to facilitate Bear Stearns' sale to J.P. Morgan

Chase. These steps have had an immediate impact on the

financial markets and are also expected to have a long-term

effect on our financial regulatory structure.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed

voted to open its discount window to primary dealers. While

this authority has been available to the Fed since 1932, the

decision to use it at this time has raised questions about

whether and when the Fed should intervene to help a

particular industry or firm in the name of market stability.

With the Fed approving the financing arrangements of the

sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan Chase as well as

guaranteeing $29 billion in securities currently held by Bear

Stearns, the Fed has possibly exposed the American taxpayers

to unknown amounts of financial loss and established a

precedent that could lead to future instances of companies in

similar financial trouble expecting the same assistance.

These extraordinary actions have raised a number of complex

and multifaceted questions. As members of the committee of

jurisdiction over our nation's financial markets and the

regulatory bodies that oversee them, we feel it is imperative

to have a full and public vetting of this unique situation.

Therefore, we strongly urge you to convene a hearing on this

subject of the Financial Services Committee on the soonest

possible date.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

I find it amazing and amusing that the chairman raises how many Republicans signed onto the two letters when, in fact, it evidences the fact that zero Democrats signed onto that letter and zero Democrats have done anything with regard to Bear Stearns for the last 2 months since this occurred. If there was even one Member from the other side of the aisle from the committee, when we invited the entire committee to sign onto it, I think the chairman would be in a stronger position, but he is not because none of them signed on then. And even earlier this evening, when I invited them to sign onto an addition to it, none of them have come across to sign onto it.

Secondly, I find it amusing when the chairman's response in the letter was that he has more confidence in Bernanke and the Fed than we do. So if your question is that we did not point out that there were problems with it, your response points out that--as I've said, I'm not quoting because I cannot get a copy of the letter back here--you had more confidence in the decisions and in the actions of the Fed and the administration. So if you had more confidence, maybe that explains why 2 months after the action we are still asking for the chairman to hold a hearing on the matter, and here it is, 2 months later, all we are getting is rhetoric from this side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, today, I join with citizens around the world to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. On this day, we honor the European Jews who retained their human dignity in the midst of extreme suffering, and in many cases, offered passive resistance.

Some Jews opposed the Third Reich through participation in underground forces. In Warsaw, many banded together to fight the Nazis in the ghettos. Others used what meager means they had to preserve their culture. The U.S. Holocaust Museum, located just a few blocks from here, displays artwork and poetry created by Jews imprisoned in concentration camps--evidences of the prisoners' courage and resilience.

The genocide remains one of the darkest stains on the history of humanity and a testament to the strength of the Jewish people. As both a Member of Congress and a private citizen possessing a strong faith, I vow to always remember and respect those who suffered such a tragic fate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Constance Mierendorf and to celebrate her inauguration as the first female President of Sussex County Community College.

Constance Mierendorf brings a wealth of experience to this position as a teacher, academic leader and innovative small businesswoman. Dr. Mierendorf holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln; earning her Bachelor and Master degree in English from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. She also holds certificates for secondary teaching and teaching English as a second Language. Her post- graduate work includes coursework at Harvard University's Institute for Educational Management.

Dr. Constance Mierendorf comes to the Presidency of SCCC from Raritan Valley Community College, where she held the position of Vice President of Academic Affairs. She held the same position at Santa Fe Community College in New Mexico, and was also a faculty member and department chair at Minneapolis Community and Technical College.

In addition to her education background, Dr. Mierendorf brings considerable business expertise to the College. She worked as a corporate trainer to Chief Executive Officers of several Fortune 500 companies and was a partner and business manager for Mierendorf Productions, a three-time Emmy Award winning documentary film company.

Sussex County Community College is a true gem of the Fifth Congressional District. It currently serves more than 3,500 credit and 1,700 non-credit students each year. SCCC is ranked 11th in the country, as the fastest growing community college of its size, with a 43-percent increase in enrollment over the past 5 years. I am confident Dr. Mierendorf will continue to raise the bar of SCCC's educational standards.

I commend Dr. Mierendorf on her appointment as the President of Sussex County Community College. I wish her all the best as she embarks on this opportunity and congratulate her on this remarkable accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, I come here tonight, as we do every month or so, to begin another session of the Constitution hour. Members of the Congressional Constitution Caucus basically use these opportunities to emphasize to our colleagues and people across the Nation the necessity of ensuring that our government is operating under the intent of our Founding Fathers. Specifically, we look at the 10th amendment which affirms that the authority over most domestic issues belongs to the States, either directly or through their political subdivisions, and to the people therefore themselves. Actually, the exact wording of it is that all powers not specifically delegated to the United States Government is retained by the people or the States respectively.

So we come to the floor as we do every month or so to bring this point home, to educate the Members of Congress, and to have a discussion on the constitutional merits of what we are debating here in the week before and after. In a little while we will look at a piece of pending legislation, a sunset bill, as it were. But before I do that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I thank the gentleman for raising these points. He takes the lead from the gentleman from Maine from the other side of the aisle who had just previously done 5 minutes talking about the energy situation. Let me follow up along those lines before we talk about the sunset bill we want to talk about tonight.

I agree with the gentleman from Georgia that our Founding Fathers would be rolling their eyes and turning over to the proverbial grave if they were ever to look to see the size and scope and depth of regulation of the Federal Government, a far cry from what the Founders ever intended as the appropriate role of government in people's lives.

They did, as the gentleman from Georgia said, put a significant weight and value to that of private property rights, and they did believe that private property was just that, something to be held by the private citizen and not by the government, whether it is the State or Federal, but specifically here on the Federal level.

The gentleman from Maine was making the observation that something needs to be done with regard to the fact that our citizens back home, our constituents back home are aggrieved by the high price of oil, whether it is the gasoline for your car or for the diesel for your truck, or home heating fuel if you are in the northern States such as myself. The gentleman from the other side of the aisle on the majority party would suggest that the answer comes from the Federal Government.

I would suggest that the answer, as far as the Founding Fathers would believe, the answer comes from the private sector, would that the private sector have a free hand and free rein in order to address the problem.

But as we stand here right now, 85 percent of our natural resources in this area of energy offshore of this country are tied up, locked up, if you will, unobtainable for all of us to use as was intended; 85 percent locked up, unavailable for us to be going to get, either oil or natural gas. So we are paying the price for that.

So when the gentleman from Maine from the majority party says that the administration is at fault here, I had to sit and scratch my head and try to remember who is running this House, and which party is running the Senate as well. And of course we know the answer, it is the Democrat Party.

This is not a partisan issue I'm raising here. I think everyone from this side of the aisle would like to extend a hand to the other side of the aisle to try to work together and come to a resolution on this issue.

But if the way that they take is to point blame and blame the President and the Bush administration and the like, that's not going to bring us to closure. That is not going to bring us to a solution satisfactory to the American public.

We need to work together on this.

Likewise, we are not going to get to that solution if all we have is empty promises. I remember all too well a little over 2 years ago, in the 2006 elections, when the, then they were the minority party, but the Democrat Party was saying that they had the solution. They had the answer to the oil problem and the oil crisis and the price of gas at the pump, and if they were elected, they said, and they were put into the majority power, they would be able to give us that solution and that plan and bring us to a better day.

And if you think back to where it was and what they were saying was so terrible at that time, well, gas at that time was like $1.90 or something like that. It was just approaching, it hadn't quite gone over $2 a gallon at the pump. But they said elect them and they'd have a solution.

Well, here it is in April, 16 months after they've been in office, and we are still waiting for that solution. We are still waiting for that answer to come down the road, to be handed to us so

that we can all get behind it in a bipartisan manner and answer that the challenge that the American public gave to us, how can we solve this problem. Because the American public, I think, would be more akin and in tune with what the founders would say.

The American public would say, to solve this problem you must release the abilities and the entrepreneurial spirit and the great ideas of the business person and the landowner and the private property owner and those who own renewable and other energy sources to be able to develop those and allow them to come into the marketplace.

But that is not happening yet, so long as the other side of the aisle refuses to give us whatever their solution or their plan is that they told us about some time ago, nor is that about to come about so long as the other side of the aisle simply comes to the floor and casts aspersion on the Bush administration or whoever's in the White House at the time and says it's all somebody else's fault, rather than really grappling with the issue and trying to come to a solution to it.

There are solutions to it. There are free market principles. They are principles that our founding fathers would have enjoyed and appreciated and applauded as they crafted the U.S. Constitution, and that's what we should be embracing today, so that we can go home to our constituents, so the gentleman from Georgia, who said he's somewhat embarrassed to go back to his constituents and say this is what is happening now in Congress as Congress fails to deliver on its promises.

We should be able to deliver, if not on our promises, then on the promises on the other side of the aisle and to address this solution in a bipartisan manner and get the job done in the manner that their founders would have intended.

Now, I believe that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) had another point on a different issue. The gentleman, I am pleased, has just joined us, from Utah. And before we get to the topic that we came here tonight, which was to discuss the issue of the Brady bill, which is the bill dealing with the Sunset Commission and how the Constitution ties into that topic and why the founding fathers would applaud the ideas that Mr. Brady has given us as far as addressing the over-running government that we have, the gentleman from Utah has joined us, Mr. Bishop, to fill us in on the issue dealing with NASA.

I thank the gentleman from Utah. And the gentleman makes an interesting point when he says to educate takes only to excite the mind and the imaginations and, of course, that is what happened some 200-plus years ago in this country when our founding fathers came to this land and excited the imagination that a new form of government never conceived by any human in any portion of the world ever before, and that was, we've seen today, in the U.S. Constitution.

You know, that document today, for a lot of people is just a historical document and nothing more than that. And to many citizens the Federal Government is nothing more than a problem solving institution of government.

However, the founding fathers delegated only a few specific powers to us here in Washington, to the House and the Senate and the White House, few specific powers, and they are in numerated in the Constitution. The remaining political powers were reserved for the States and the local governments and the people specifically.

So tonight, I'm joined by my colleagues, Mr. Bishop who will speak again in a few moments, and Mr. Brady from Texas who'll try to focus on one aspect of trying to revert the government to what the founders intended in the first place by focusing on the inefficiencies and the waste that occurs when the Federal Government oversteps its bounds that were set forth in the Constitution.

And we come here not simply to complain about the situation. No, and that's why I'm pleased that I'm joined by Mr. Brady, because Mr. Brady comes here with a solution to the problem as well, and he does so in the form of the Federal Sunset Act, which would help our country, in essence, return to the limits originally intended by our founding fathers.

So with that I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I thank the gentleman for taking the lead on this issue, not only in this session of Congress, but in the past session of Congress as well where I have been a proud cosponsor of your legislation because it goes a long ways to, what was that phrase that Barry Goldwater used when he came to Washington the first time? He said, I did not come to Washington to streamline government or make it more efficient. I came to Washington to eliminate it. And that's what you're trying to do as well with the intent of the legislation is define those areas of government that are extra-Constitutional, outside of the bounds of the Constitution, find those portions of government that are wasteful, duplicative and the like and to basically eliminate those so that the Federal Government can appropriately focus its attention on those areas that it's supposed to and then get that job done so that you and I can go back to our constituents and say that we are fulfilling the role of the Constitution and we are doing it in a Constitutional manner.

I will yield.

I appreciate your hard work on this initiative so that, as I say, when we go back to our constituents and one of those bills comes up in the future, and it will come up, when it's laden with additional spending, I'm not talking about earmarks or proverbial pork barrel spending, I'm talking about just legislation, that appropriation for dollars going to some other duplicative-type programs that you mention out there that we, you and I and the rest of us who are in agreement on this issue, can go back to our constituents and say, I voted the right way. I voted to eliminate those programs. I voted to downsize those programs. I voted to make sure that all we have left standing are those things that the Founders would agree with and that the programs and the agencies and the services that the public desires and demands and it's within the confines of the Constitution, and they're getting it done in an effective and efficient manner.

So I appreciate your taking the bold step to accomplish that, and we're behind you on that. Now, if we can get the support on the other side of the aisle and move this legislation, we will be even further down the field than that.

We're joined again by the gentleman from Utah to join us in this discussion on the Constitution and more specifically, on the Brady bill with regard to the sunsetting these wasteful, duplicative unconstitutional initiatives that the Federal Government is wanting and ripe to continue but for the fact that we have legislation like this.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for being on the floor tonight and also for the subject, for introducing this Federal Sunset Act, an act which would, as he said, return our country and our government to the intent as set forth by our Founding Fathers.

And when you think about it, in light of the extremely high taxes and even higher deficit, the time for greater efficiency in government couldn't be any greater than it is today. The American worker is handing far too much of his or her hard-earned money, his paycheck each week over to the Federal Government only to see it wasted in layers of bureaucracy, red tape and so on. I think you quoted Ronald Reagan before when you said that a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal thing that we'll ever see on Earth, but regrettably, longevity truly has nothing to do whatsoever with a program's effectiveness or efficiency or usefulness to the American people. Just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean that it's good.

Now, the background for the idea of a sunset, as the gentleman from Utah said, comes from the States, who are usually on the cutting edge because they are the laboratory of experimentation. And the sunset takes its name from the sunset laws used by many States to provide for a periodic review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency operations and their policies. It was back in 1976 that Colorado was the first State to implement a sunset. And at the State level this process has saved the taxpayer hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. And it has also reduced the size of government at the same time. And simply how it works is that each and every Federal agency must justify its own existence, and not its existence from the time that it was created, which may have been 100 years ago or 80 years or 60 or 40 or even 10 years ago, but its existence today to the consumer, which is the taxpayer, constituent. And then after a thorough evaluation, the commission recommends to Congress that

an agency be reauthorized, streamlined, consolidated, or in some cases, maybe even eliminated.

So why is that a great idea? It's a great idea because, as we said before, the Federal Government is just far too big, too fat, too wasteful. And especially now, in a time of war, in a time of deficit, don't we need every single dollar to really count, to be accounted for and to go for what is necessary? And a Federal sunset law is truly a proven way to abolish those obsolete Federal programs, eliminate duplication, and hold every agency accountable to the taxpayer.

You know, it's no secret that there are many Federal programs that are simply not serving the American public. And these are the programs that have outlived their purpose, duplicated other programs, simply waste taxpayer dollars by diverting dollars away from real priorities and into what you might want to say is a black hole of ineffectiveness, which is what we see in Washington. And I think Mr. Brady said it, a taxpayer now works up to 113 days out of a year just to pay for his share of the Federal Government's spending of ineffectiveness.

Unfortunately, these programs survive anyway. And they survive because of special interests, these cottage industries that grow down here that live off the taxpayer earnings. But you know, Madam Speaker, we're not here to represent any of those special interests. We are here to represent the mothers and fathers who could be at home with their children instead of working an extra shift so that they can make their contribution to this bloated bureaucracy that we call Washington. With a Federal deficit in the billions of dollars and with taxes that are too high and too unfair, we must do everything we can to ensure that our Federal spending is as limited as possible and most efficient as possible.

And with that, let me just make one additional point. The idea and why we come to the floor now and why I commend Mr. Brady so much for his work on this is that the Federal Government was intended to be limited by the Founding Fathers, and this Sunset Commission would give us the opportunity to revisit that issue.

I often say that when we vote on a bill, specifically on appropriation bills or authorization bills, and as we take out of our pocket the little card, which is our voting right, we should ask ourselves whether or not we have the constitutional authority to be voting yes on that spending or authorization bill. And in order to know whether we have that authority, we should be looking to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, what this Sunset bill would basically force us to do is to look to see whether we actually have that authority and make each one of those Federal bureaus and agencies and departments and so on and so forth, whether they have that specific authority to do what they have been doing for 20 or 40 or more years, and whether, therefore, they should be eliminated or continued, or not.

There have been different perspectives on whether or not these agencies should have the authority. And what we would have to do in this instance is take a look at what the Constitution says. One area we look to is article I, section 8, which basically would set out for the Congress, as they review these agencies and as we should really be looking at any time we look at any piece of legislation that comes before us, and this sets forth the enumerated powers of the Constitution and the powers here in Congress.

There are a couple of views on how this is interpreted, but both of them are basically a limitation. Enumerated powers means that if it's listed in the Constitution, they are enumerating, they are listing certain powers that we have the right of. And therefore, the converse of that is if they are not enumerated, if they are not listed, then, therefore, we do not have the power to do so. And therefore, if there is an agency that does not have the specific powers to conduct its activity, that program should be eliminated.

Now, the one view most strict on this, of course, was James Madison, who repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend, which is what we're talking about when we're talking about appropriations or authorizations, did not confer upon the Congress the right to do whatever it thought was best in the interest of the Nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. So you have to look either there or someplace else in the Constitution.

The second view on this, of course, is a little bit broader, but still pretty limited, and would still fall under this bill as far as a review under this bill as to what we should be doing here. And that simply says, does the agency, the bureau's activities, does it contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under this law be for general use, that is, national welfare, not purely for local or regional benefit. And so here what the founders were intending to say is if it's general use, general welfare, does it apply across the board to the benefit of everyone? Now, when we do this, and if this legislation were to become law and we are able to systematically look at each and every agency, I think we would find that much of what we appropriate our dollars for, the taxpayers dollars for does not meet either one of these tests. It is not simply a power that is being enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, nor is it for the general use of the entire country. And when you look for the definition of the general use of the entire country, we can look again to see how the founders interpreted that when they passed in the First and the Second, Third or Fourth Congress as to how they interpreted it.

You know, in the very First Congress of the United States, they looked at an example to make an appropriation for a loan to a glass manufacturer. That piece of legislation failed in Congress after Members expressed the view that such an appropriation would be unconstitutional under article I, section 8. Likewise, under the Fourth Congress, they did not believe the power to provide relief for citizens of Savannah, Georgia after a devastating fire destroyed the entire city; likewise, outside the purview of the Constitution.

Whether we are talking about restrictions under this provision or otherwise, the sunset provision would give Congress in the future the opportunity to review each and every agency to make sure that it is operating within the confines of the Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers, and that it can only be a good thing at the end of the day for the U.S. citizen.

With that, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Texas.

And I thank the gentleman from Texas. I thank the gentleman from Utah as well for being on the floor, and for both your leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus, as we do each week, to formally acknowledge the importance of prayer in American life and history. Today I remind my colleagues, constituents and country of our need for prayer by reading a portion of a proclamation by John Hancock 220 years ago in 1783 while he was Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

He said, ``It has been the laudable Practice of this Country, to open the Business of the Year, by setting apart a Day for Religious Exercise, thereby to implore the Blessing of God upon all the Undertakings of his People.

``He hath been graciously pleased to hear our Prayers. At such a Time then, it is peculiarly fit and becoming for us as a People, while we express our Gratitude to Almighty God for his numerous and unmerited Favors, to humble ourselves before Him for our manifold Sins, and to profess our entire Dependence upon his paternal Care, beseeching Him to give us his Grace that we may be able to improve his Mercies to his Honor and Glory.''

Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 93rd anniversary of the onset of the Armenian genocide. It is on this date that the Ottoman officials captured more than 200 Armenian intellectual leaders and placed them in prison. Unfortunately, these actions were only the beginning of the Ottoman-led atrocities against the Armenians.

During the following years, at least 1.5 million Armenians were arrested and compelled to march hundreds of miles to what is today the Syrian desert. And along the way, prisoners of all ages endured hunger, thirst, rape, sexual abuse, and other forms of torture.

While it is difficult for us to commemorate these terrible acts each year, we must continue to remember those horrors that can occur when governments persecute citizens based on ethnicity or religious affiliation.

We often hear those words of George Santayana's famous quote that, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' And these words are ringing true today as well. Already, there are those who deny that the Armenian genocide occurred despite the vast evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, our generation has seen its own mass murders occur in Rwanda and Sudan.

So, I urge my colleagues in the majority to bring House Resolution 106, which commemorates these atrocities that occurred only a few generations ago, to the House Floor for a vote. Now is the time for America to officially ensure that U.S. foreign policy reflects sensitivity concerning human rights issues.

Just yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting Alice Khachadoorian- Shnorhokian. Alice is a resident of Mahwah, New Jersey, which is a town in my district. Alice was born in Turkey in 1912 to a successful, respected Armenian family of eight. And when Turkish officials ordered Armenians to denounce their faith and nationality, she and her parents refused. As a result, her family was rounded up and ordered to march into the desert. Alice and her brother were too young, of course, at that age to walk, so her parents had to put them in boxes on either side of a donkey and march into the desert.

When they arrived in Aintab, her mother befriended their Turkish neighbors, and these neighbors ultimately enabled them to get a permit which allowed Alice and her family to escape. Alice moved to the United States in 1980, and became a citizen of the U.S. just 5 years later. And, as a survivor, she says she wants to, ``see justice so that the words `never again' become a reality.''

So, while I am a Member of Congress, I will always remember Alice's words and her wish. We must fully recognize the friendship with our allies in Turkey today, but we cannot change nor should we forget the past. I hope that there can be some reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, and that a proper acknowledgement of the crimes of the past can now allow them to move forward into a future of peace and also of mutual understanding.

Well, it's been reported in the press that the Democrats have horrifically failed as the majority in Congress of getting almost anything done. You know, they made promise after promise to try to help the American people and, to no surprise really, most of those promises are now broken.

This is evident by the fact that there's been a dramatic increase in the price of oil that we all have had to suffer and go through. Some people now call that the ``Pelosi Premium.''

Before taking the majority, the Democrats vowed that they would address this issue and, more importantly, that they had a plan. Well, here we are 16 months into this administration of this Congress, where's the plan?

Now I was on the floor just last week. At that time the cost of oil was about $115 a barrel. This week it's approaching $120 a barrel. $5 increase in just 1 week. Where is it going to be a week from now or a month from now or the summertime? I can only guess.

I can also guess as to when are the Democrats going to make the American people and their family budget a priority, as opposed to these other things we've been doing on the floor?

We really can't afford to keep on paying these skyrocketing energy prices and gas prices. If only the majority weren't so occupied with their special interest spending and earmarks, we would be able to focus on the energy problem.

Mr. Speaker, I rise now to honor an ally who has stood with us in the global war on terrorism. An ally who knows what it's like to fight for peace and for freedom. An ally that continues to pursue liberty even amid increased threats. That ally is Israel.

A millennia ago the Israelites providentially escaped from captivity in Egypt. That event is remembered this week as Jews around the world celebrate Passover. Yet their struggles, of course, did not end after Moses' leadership.

Less than 10 decades ago, Israel was one of the most violent spots on the planet as various governments sought to destroy the fledgling nation. Today, just 60 years after its establishment, Israel has prospered and contributed to the economic, scientific, medical, and agricultural success of nations both in the Middle East and around the world.

I am a proud cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 322, which recognizes the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel, and it reaffirms the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.

Tonight I also want to recognize Israel's achievement in one particular area as well, and that is agriculture. And maybe it's fitting, with Earth Day here, this topic is especially relevant.

Israel is 60 percent desert, and yet scientists have found innovative farming methods that have allowed the desert there to bloom. Not only has Israel shared its newfound knowledge with the United States, but they have also shared technology and techniques with other nations which contain desert regions.

For example, the world's first surface drip irrigation system was developed in a Kibbutz near Beersheba in the 1960s. It was after an Israeli water engineer noticed a hedge that was noticeably different, healthier and taller. The man, Simcha Blass, used his discovery to create an irrigation device that uses friction and water pressure loss to leak drops of water at regular intervals. So today fruits and vegetable growers in many dry areas around the world use this drip irrigation method thanks to Israel.

In addition, scientists in Israel have developed genetically modified, disease-resistant fruits like bananas and peppers and other crops. These fruits and vegetables help expand the world's supply of food and maintain low prices at grocery stores here and abroad.

Since the 1970s Israel has partnered with the U.S. in several joint scientific ventures, including the Bi-national Agricultural Research Development Fund, BARD. This group basically focuses on enhancing agricultural productivity.

Israel has also pioneered advances in desalination. It was in Eilat, an arid city located at the intersection of the desert and the Red Sea, and it used to be a really barren settlement due to shortages in the water supply. Back then visitors had to bring their own water and wash their laundry in buckets. But today residents own swimming pools, plant flower gardens, and relax in shaded, grassy yards. It is due to desalination, and now the city is self-sufficient in maintaining its own water supply.

Desalination, which turns seawater into freshwater by separating salty compounds from water molecules, is now being considered here in the U.S. in places like Georgia and Texas and Florida. And according to the International Desalination Association, desalination makes up more than half of the freshwater used in the Middle East and North Africa, again thanks to Israel.

Clearly, Israel has demonstrated expertise in agricultural innovation. And as representative of the great State of New Jersey's Fifth District, which is home to many small farms, and New Jersey is called the Garden State, I appreciate Israel's agricultural developments and its willingness to disseminate research and to share that across international boundaries.

So I conclude simply by saying I salute Israel on its anniversary and its many achievements, and I thank that nation for making that nation what it is and for making the United States a better country as well.

I thank the ranking member for all of your work in the area of education.

I think the chart at my left points out the dilemma that the previous

speakers have been making. This chart shows the involvement of the Federal Government with regard to dollars, and it also reflects the issue with regard to their involvement with regulation and the like.

From 1966 up to 2000, as the Federal Government became more involved, dollars spent increased. And as the years have gone on, what is the result of that, basically a flat or no increase in education.

Two points, one point on the issue of accountability, and the other on new approaches. In the area of accountability, the question we have to ask is accountable to whom? The gentlewoman from Illinois made my case for me when she said that she was concerned about her kids and therefore she decided to run for the local school board.

I would suggest that the best place to get accountability is just as she did, locally, from the local school board, teachers, principals and the like. If you ask most parents who is a local teacher, they will know. If you ask who is the local principal, they will know. Ask most parents who is the Secretary of Education in Washington or the bureaucrats down here making the rules, they unfortunately will not have a clue. And yet what we have been doing over the last several decades is having them have greater accountability and responsibility than the teacher and the principal.

The second point is the approaches. I agree with the ranking member on this in that it is great that we have so many new approaches tried in schools across the country. The problem is when you get to a Federal level, two things happen. Sometimes you potentially nationalize some of these, and that is good if you pick out the good ones. But if you happen to pick out some of the bad ones, such as whole language in California, and that had a dismal track record and result, you can end up having a terrible effect on the entire national education system.

My second point is, and the ranking member made a good point on this, Washington doesn't move as quickly as local school boards. Sometimes it takes 5 years or more to reauthorization and even more years to get something done in the district. We can move more quickly at the end of the day.

I conclude with this. Accountability to whom, it should be accountable to the local teachers and the principals, not to somebody in Washington.

New approaches, it is better to be done locally. And as we move forward and move to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, I just throw out a modest, simple proposal, allow those States who need the Federal Government to tell them and dictate to them how to run their schools and so forth to stay in No Child Left Behind. But allow those States who have parents or community leaders or principals who feel that they can get it done by themselves without the Federal Government, allow those States to opt out, but also to keep their own tax dollars in that State so they can decide how their education money will be spent.