Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering H. Res. 947 today, congratulating Lee Myung-Bak on his election to the Presidency of the Republic of Korea. I was proud to cosponsor this resolution and I join with my fellow Members in wishing him well during his time of transition this month.

When Lee Myung-Bak is inaugurated on February 25, I am confident that he will do much to broaden the longstanding relationship between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. In the past month, he has already met with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as well as several members of the President's Cabinet and Members of Congress.

President-elect Myung-Bak is well-qualified to assume his new role. He earned a B.A. in Business Administration at the Korea University and later served as a Visiting Scholar at George Washington University here in Washington, DC before being awarded two Honorary Doctor of Economics degrees.

Additionally, President-elect Myung-Bak's past professional experience has honed his vital business, diplomatic, and political skills. For 15 years, he was the CEO of 10 Hyundai Group affiliated companies. He then served as a National Assemblyman from 1992 to 1998 before being elected Mayor of Seoul in 2002.

I applaud President-elect Myung-Bak for expressing his commitment to free market policies that encourage both foreign and domestic investors. I look forward to the ratification of the United States- South Korea Free Trade Agreement and I welcome his proposed plans to reduce trade restrictions and lower tax rates. Furthermore, as the Republic of South Korea assists in negotiating Pyongyang's denuclearization, I urge the President-elect to closely integrate U.S. and Japanese initiatives related to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Today, I join my colleagues in congratulating President-elect Myung- Bak, and I wish him, his wife and four children success in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to three men who have together given nearly 160 years of service as firefighters in North Jersey. This weekend the Knickerbocker Hook & Ladder Company in Closter, New Jersey will honor these men at their golden anniversary of service. Knickerbocker Hook & Ladder has served the people of Closter since 1893. And, these men have been a part of nearly half of that century of service.

Philip Addison first joined the Closter Fire Department in March 1957. He served as Chief in 1970 and as President in 1972.

Prosper Buchhart joined the Closter Fire Department shortly after Philip, in December 1957, and has also served as Chief and President.

Charles Stewart started with Dumont Fire Company #2 in April 1949 and transferred to the Closter Fire Department 12 years later.

Knickerbocker Hook & Ladder was honored in 2001 by the Volunteer Center of Bergen County for the work of its volunteers to keep the people and businesses of Closter safe and secure. These 45 volunteers spend countless hours on call at work, in their homes, or at the firehouse, responding to about 275 calls a year. They also participate in constant training to ensure their skills are always sharp. In addition to giving selflessly of themselves to respond to fires, accidents, and other emergencies, these firefighters also provide fire prevention education to school children and have sponsored an Explorer Boy Scout Troop.

Philip Addison, Prosper Buchhart, and Charles Stewart exemplify the service and spirit that has long sustained this volunteer fire department and will sustain in for years to come. Their dedication to the public good is commendable and I join the people of Closter in honoring them as they reach this milestone in service.

Madam Speaker, a little over a year ago, on January 19, 2007, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was murdered for reporting on the Armenian Genocide. The first anniversary of his

death should serve as a reminder of the ongoing need for improvement in Turkish-Armenian relations.

Hrant Dink worked as the editor of ``Agos'', a bilingual paper designed to reach both Turks and Armenians. He was an outspoken advocate of democratic change and freedom of speech.

While Turkish officials rightly condemned the political killing, Turkey has not yet repealed Article 301 of the Turkish Penal code, which makes it illegal to discuss the Armenian Genocide. This law, which criminalizes free speech, hampers Turkey's efforts to restore their relationship with Armenia, a goal the Turkish government claims to desire.

Hrant Dink's death was more than an assassination; it was an attack on the principle of free speech. Turkish officials should use the anniversary of his death as an opportunity to restore open communication between the citizens of both countries. Lasting reconciliation must be built on uninhibited dialogue and Turkey can begin building the road to restoration by recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

We remember the legacy of Hrant Dink by encouraging Turkey to tolerate democratic freedoms and rebuild their relationship with Armenia.

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

First of all, I begin by saying thanks to the chairman of the committee for his help in working through this piece of legislation, and also for the ranking member for her working alongside the Chair as to facilitate the moving along of this legislation to the floor today. As the chairman indicates, we had the opportunity to discuss it in committee, which is, I think, and I think he will concur with me, is always the best way to deal with all legislation as opposed to bringing them up later on. It's best to get out there so we can have full and adequate disclosure and discussion on the issues. We were able to do that; we just weren't able to get it through the next hoop. But now we're able to jump through that hoop today, and, again, I appreciate the chairman's work on that.

What this is all about, very simply, is this. Back in 1968, that is when NFIP was created, the National Flood Insurance Program, and that was done, as the chairman indicated, way back then three or four decades ago, as I guess more and more people were building homes in places maybe they shouldn't be, along coastal lines and what have you, it was just next to impossible to buy flood insurance.

So Congress stepped in and created NFIP, and that allowed folks the opportunity to buy flood insurance for the first time. When they did that, however, they realized that here again we're talking about two sets of houses, those that were already in existence at the time and those that would come afterwards, called pre-FIRM and post-FIRM homes. They thought Congress back then, probably in its wisdom, realized that it wouldn't be right to tell those folks who were already in the floodplains that this new program was going to come along, that they were going to impose upon them a mandate of buying flood insurance when they bought and sold their houses; so what they did was instead to provide a subsidy for those pre-FIRM homes, and that subsidy has existed up until today. Unfortunately, we know that the flood program has had some problems in the last couple of years, most notably because of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. All the money that they have had to borrow to pay out for those huge flood losses, they are now $18 billion in debt. And that's the reason why the committee is now coming back to relook at the flood program, and that's why we have done that.

The legislation that the chairman talks about that we have already done I appreciate that we've moved through the House. I am a little bit disappointed, though, in that legislation in one regard, in that it increased the exposure to wind damage in the flood program. But despite that what I call an error in direction on that legislation, the underlying bill did make some substantial improvements to the overlying program. It updated the flood maps, increased the phase-in of actuarial rates on vacation homes and also second homes and on nonresidential properties that have been subsidized by the program since its inception.

The one area, though, that was not addressed was these pre-FIRM homes and the fact that the subsidies continue to exist. So to that effort, we have tried to get a compromise between those who said let's not do anything and those who said let's have those pre-FIRM homes immediately put in on the higher rates that would occur without the subsidization. Through the committee efforts, through the work with the ranking member and the chairman, we were able to come through with a compromise. In essence it says this: If you're a pre-FIRM home, your rates will still be subsidized until that home is basically phased in, sold and phased in on the same rate schedule as the underlying bill, and only for those homes that are sold for over $600,000. A movement in the right direction with regard to the subsidization, the problems of the underlying program, and for that reason I think we are moving appropriately, and I look forward to those deliberations that we may have sometime with the Senate on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for managing this hour as Members come to the floor to speak about this extremely important topic.

I must begin my remarks by thanking everyone who took part earlier today, all those folks who traveled down here to Washington to participate in the annual Right to Life March from all over the country, in bad bus rides and distant flight delays and bumpy car rides. I am grateful to all the marchers who came from the great State of New Jersey. Particularly, I would like to recognize the students from Pope John High School and also the kids from Veritas Christian Academy located in Sparta, as well as some of the parishioners who came down from Our Lady of Fatima in Vernon, St. Jude's Church in Blairstown, Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Stillwater, and the folks from Lafayette Federated Church from Lafayette.

I didn't include everyone, but the list would go on and on with all of the people from the great State of New Jersey, people concerned and taking part to make sure that their voice was heard.

Earlier today I had the opportunity, and I would say the honor of speaking to the thousands of marchers who came out. They braved the freezing wind and the rain that was coming on as well. As I had a chance to talk to them, I told them that they, along with Members of Congress, were probably experiencing mixed emotions at the time, similar to the emotions I was experiencing.

Think about it, on the one hand, we are immensely encouraged by what we see. We are encouraged that so many people have gathered here in Washington, DC to mark the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. We draw comfort from that fact. We are encouraged that our Nation has not forgotten that tragic death even 35 years later. We are encouraged that we can stand firm in reminding our fellow citizens that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And most importantly of all, is the right to life.

Finally, we are encouraged that in many cases, our efforts have been rewarded. For instance, the number of abortions that are performed annually has actually dropped down back to levels not seen since the 1970s. Still, despite those signs of encouragement, our hearts are still heavy with sadness and that is because we mourn the millions of babies who have been mercilessly killed before they can even take their first single breath. And we grieve for the mothers and fathers who suffer from the emotional pain of having to have gone through an abortion.

We lament the fact of a continuing decline of morality, civility, and respect for human dignity and worth. For me and my constituents in New Jersey, I am particularly disheartened by a study that was released just last week that showed that our home State, the so-called Garden State, has the second highest abortion rate in the Nation.

It is in moments like these that we must turn our gaze upward and remember the One, the One who created life is also the One who governs the universe. He commands us to ``run and not be weary, to walk and not faint.''

And so today, we ultimately find encouragement in knowing that the battle is not over. The battle is not ours alone, and the might of right is on our side.

So we will keep working to increase the number of States that have substantive parental involvement laws, thereby protecting teens from the abortion propaganda. We will continue to prohibit partial-birth abortions and fight that in other States as well. And we will show by example how to value life.

Finally, some day I pray that we will experience a January 22 free of these mixed emotions. And instead, we will be able to celebrate a renewed culture of life in this entire Nation.

We elected officials come to the floor to remember the weakest among us. Yet I know we will succeed not because of who we are, but because of what Americans all across this great Nation are doing on behalf of life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a tremendous public servant, Robert Gabriel Shortal of Harrington Park, NJ. From the time that he, his wife, Jackie, and his children moved to this small Bergen County suburb, the Shortal family has been an integral part of this community, raising money for the public library and founding the Harrington Park Swim Club and more.

Bob was born in Kearny, NJ, in 1928. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Bob convinced his father to allow him to enlist at the young age of 16. He served honorably with the Navy, stationed on a destroyer in the Atlantic theater. Upon his discharge, he completed his education, studying journalism at New York University. He worked for United Press International, UPI, first as a copy boy and later as a financial reporter. Dedicated to his profession, Bob joined the Financial Writers Association and became its president in 1958.

As his family grew, Bob switched to work in public relations, first at City Service and later at RCA, where he remained until his retirement in 1985. Upon his retirement, Bob threw his talents and energies into community service. He became a certified EMT and became a leader with the Harrington Park Ambulance Corps. He has applied his journalist's skills as editor of the Harrington Park Newsletter. And, he has served his fellow veterans as Commander of American Legion Post 30. Bob is an active member of the Our Lady of Victories Church community and the Knights of Columbus. And, he can often be found working as a school crossing guard.

In 1992, Bob was elected to the Borough Council. He has chaired or served on each of its standing committees until his retirement last year. All the while, Bob and Jackie raised a lovely family of four children--John Frances, Mary Judith, Roberta Ann, and Judith Ann. Jackie passed away in 1999, but Bob remains blessed with seven beautiful grandchildren and a lifetime of memories.

Bob Shortal epitomizes public service. He has answered the call of his country and his community and given of his talents and time for his neighbors. I join the people of the Borough of Harrington Park in honoring Bob for his dedication and commitment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fine public servant, Frank Gurnari, police chief in Bogota, New Jersey. Chief Gurnari has served the people of Bogota for 30 years, exemplifying the honor and pride of the uniform. This weekend, he will be installed as President of the Bergen County Police Chiefs Association, extending his service to other Bergen County residents and to his fellow chiefs.

Upon his graduation from the Bergen County Police Academy in June 1978, Chief Gurnari was assigned to the Bogota patrol division. Except for a brief assignment to the Detective Bureau, Chief Gurnari served with the patrol division for nearly twenty years. He attained the rank of sergeant in 1988, and was promoted to lieutenant two years later. As lieutenant, he remained in patrol as a Tour Commander. In June 2000, Chief Gurnari was appointed Acting Chief of Police, and just six months later, he was sworn in as Chief of Police. He and the officers that work under his leadership respond to about 16,000 calls each year.

For almost eighty years, the Bergen County Police Chiefs Association has served as a fellowship of officers throughout this busy corner of New Jersey. The camaraderie it fosters helps local police chiefs protect and serve the people of Bergen County and enhances the safety of the county. Chief Gurnari has earned the respect of his peers and by virtue of his

long and honorable career of service he has earned this position of leadership.

Throughout his honorable career, Chief Gurnari has received two Honorable Service Awards from the Bogota Police Department and the Chiefs Achievement Award from the Bergen County Police Chiefs Association. I commend Chief Gurnari for his lifetime of service and wish him and his colleagues the best for a safe and productive year.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity

to come back from our break, come here to these hallowed halls to speak on an important subject, and before the gentleman from the other side of the aisle leaves, and I know he is involved in a discussion right now, but before I repeat my remarks, I will reference his closing remarks, which was an outreach for bipartisanship to address the economic situations that the country finds itself in. The gentleman can rest assured that, at least from this gentleman from this side of the aisle, he can find that bipartisanship, because I think when we all go back home to our districts, regardless of the States that we are in, we are hearing the same complaint, outcry, what have you. It may be different in different portions of the country. Certain States are certainly harder hit than others. But I think there is a general perception out there that no matter where you are, the economy is in, let's say something of the doldrums.

So this side of the aisle is glad to reach out to the other side of the aisle. I also know that the White House is more than willing to work to address the economic situation that we find ourselves in. That being said, I think that the American public wants to be sure, wants to be sure that whatever solution that we come up with out of this House, the House and the Senate, and the President eventually signs onto, will do something that will create more good than harm, and that will be long lasting and not just short-lived or a flash in the pan.

A flash-in-the-pan might be something like we have seen in my very own State. I come from the great State of New Jersey. We do something in our State which is called homestead rebates. Every year around election time, whichever party is in power at that time sends out a homestead rebate check of around $300, $400 or $500. I guess that is supposed to be good for the economy and that sort of thing, but at the end of the day of course that has just de minimis effect on the overall economy, and if you look at the State of New Jersey economy right now, you will know it is not doing well at all. That, coupled with the fact that the State legislature has raised taxes on the people, but corporate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and the like, we have seen 72,000 flee our State.

So we know that we do not want a flash-in-the-pan approach, but instead something that will improve the economy in a better way. That would most likely be something that would allow a permanent return of people's money to their pocketbooks, such as lowering the tax rates, allowing the creation of more jobs and the like. But I digress, because I was just referring to the closing comments to the gentleman on the other side the aisle.

Now I would like to turn the attention to what we are here for the next hour to speak about, and that is during the Constitution Hour. As I do that, let me just take an introductory moment to thank the gentleman from Utah who will be speaking shortly. I thank him not only for his usual diligent work as he works earnestly in his capacity as a Member representing his great State as a Member of Congress and all the responsibilities that that takes, I thank him not only for his work that he does in addition to that to try to come up with methodologies to improve the performance of this House, which we are all eager to look forward to and take part and see the work there as well, but in addition to all those responsibilities, he has also taken on the chore and responsibility, and I don't think he looks at it as a chore, to come to the floor once a month as part of the Congressional Constitutional Caucus to address the important philosophical and fundamental issues of the day.

So before I begin, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop, for all of his work to his constituents and also to the members of this conference as well.

As I say, we are here tonight as we begin another year of our monthly Constitutional Hour. During this second session of the 110th Congress, the members of this caucus will use this opportunity to emphasize for our colleagues and also for the Nation the necessity of ensuring that our government is operating according to the intent of our Founding Fathers and the original intent in the Constitution.

As the tenth amendment affirms, as I often speak of on this floor, the authority over most domestic issues belongs to the States, either directly or through their political subdivisions and the people themselves, and not here for this House to be haranguing about.

As the one who helped begin this caucus, I have discovered that for many Americans, including unfortunately some of my fellow colleagues, I guess, the Constitution is nothing more than a historical document, not germane to the current hour. Too many citizens do not know what the Constitution says about the governance of this Nation, let alone how to help discern its meaning and therefore apply it to what we do in this conference.

Therefore, one of the goals of this caucus is to help educate both the Members of this Congress and also the public as well about the original intent of the Founding Fathers and how some portions of that document got here, and tonight we will be talking about the Bill of Rights.

Last month, on that point, we celebrated the 216th anniversary of the ratification of that Bill of Rights. It was on December 15, 1791, our Founding Fathers decided to attach the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. After months of deliberation, they succeeded, I believe, in securing liberties and freedoms that were unimaginable, truly unimaginable, to previous civilizations.

Just as an aside, some scholars would perhaps disagree and say that this was seen in other documents such as the Magna Carta and the like, but nothing to the poignancy and the directness as we have in the Bill of Rights was ever seen prior to this documentation.

Tonight I join, as I say, with Mr. Bishop and others in focusing on the ratification of this Bill of Rights, and I would like then to begin a discussion of how this document continues then to affect us today.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Bill of Rights was largely the brainchild of one man, George Mason. In fact, Jefferson wrote, ``The fact is unquestionable that the Bill of Rights in the constitution of Virginia,'' which is where he was from, ``were drawn originally by George Mason, one of our greatest men.'' Yet, unfortunately, not many people today have even heard of him. It is for this reason that many have called him the forgotten founder.

But most Americans recognize the name from the movie and Cinderella story of 2006, the NCAA tournament, in which the George Mason University Patriots made its way to the final four. But it was George Mason's tremendous contributions and accomplishments himself that have largely gone unrecognized.

Mr. Mason established himself as one of the richest planters in colonial Virginia, and, like George Washington, who everyone is familiar with, he preferred to remain at home working on his plantation and spending time with his family. But when duty called, he did not ignore it nor hide from it, and throughout his adulthood, consented to the request of his fellow Virginians and served in various political capacities. He was a Fairfax County justice, a trustee of the City of Alexandria, and a representative in the Virginia House of Burgesses.

It was when England enacted the Stamp Act that he wrote a letter to London merchants, who he had often many dealings with, explaining the colonists' position and asking for their support leading to the revolution.

One of his greatest accomplishments was his contribution to the Virginia Declaration of Rights. When he became a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was one of the five frequent speakers there.

Despite all that, he ultimately refused to sign the final version of the Constitution, for two reasons: One, and most importantly to our discussion tonight, he wanted to have a Bill of Rights in that original document to protect individuals against a grasping, overgrowing central government, one which we see today. Secondly, he disagreed with the convention's tacit approval of the institution of slavery.

So, because of his stands, he refused to sign the document and he also lost a longtime friendship with George Washington and others. But it was one year before his death Mason was vindicated. That was when the Bill of Rights was

finally adopted by all the States. Moreover, much of the adopted language was actually the identical words that he used and crafted in the original Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Author George Grant describes Mason as a rationalist who had little faith in the workings of government bodies. He fought passionately for the freedoms of the individual, whether it was a citizen or slave at the time, and he was largely responsible for ensuring that the protection of the rights of the individual would be such an essential part of the American system. That is our responsibility as Members of Congress, to ensure that those rights are continuously protected in the legislation that we deal with on this floor.

To show you how much we are indebted to Mason, let me quote a portion of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which I just said he authored. ``All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural rights, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.''

Those were his words. They sound very familiar to us all. Mason was also among the first to call for such basic American liberties as freedom of press, religious tolerance and the right to trial by jury. As he understood it, the Bill of Rights would protect citizens, as I say, from encroaching Federal Government, and so his original language then eventually made its way into our current U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As my colleague will detail, I presume, or talk about, and I will a little bit later on, the Bill of Rights has been in certain cases misinterpreted in certain court cases in the past over the last centuries. In certain instances these errors have allowed the government to seize some of the very freedoms that the Bill of Rights was intended to protect.

I will go into those in a little bit dealing with the first amendment and the establishment of religion, an issue that is very poignant today, and also in the first amendment, issues of the court's interpretation of abuse of freedom of speech and the press and how they have changed in the interpretations of recent Supreme Court decisions as to which is more important and paramount, commercial and independent speech.

The second amendment, I believe we may have some speakers later on again on very poignant cases that will be coming dealing here with issues right here in the District of Columbia.

The fifth amendment, taking clauses again, legislation that this House has dealt with and we will be talking about very briefly later on as well.

Right to speedy trial and how what we do here with regard to the criminalization of laws can have an impact on that as well.

In closing my remarks right now, the tenth amendment, I believe Ms. Foxx will be on the floor a little bit later on talking about that and how that closes up and compresses or closes the end tail, if you will, of the entire Bill of Rights.

So those are some of the elements of it, our discussion tonight. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Utah. Again, I appreciate your being with us.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. Can the gentleman just remind me of the bill number again?

I am already a cosponsor, but I don't always remember bill numbers.

And if the gentleman would inform us, do we have bipartisan support as far as cosponsors of the bill as of yet?

I would encourage the gentleman, because I know I have been on the floor and while we have established this Congressional Constitutional Caucus, which is open to all Members of both sides of the aisle, I believe I have heard sitting on this floor that there is another caucus on the other side of the aisle which I guess is open but I haven't heard yet, the First Amendment Caucus. So at least there is at least one caucus over there who is concerned about the first amendment, if I am not mistaken, and hopefully maybe some of those Members would be willing to, if they are eager to speak on the first amendment, they will want to be knowledgeable about the entire Constitution as well. We might want to reach out to them.

I share with the gentleman from Texas his eagerness to see this legislation. It is one of those commonsense sort of things that if you are engaged in crafting laws, then you should know what your authority for crafting those laws are. And, of course, that authority comes to us not from previous laws that we have passed, but from the Constitution of the United States, which was obviously ratified and supported by all the States and the people thereof.

The gentleman from Texas also makes me think back on my history. I am an attorney, and you got me thinking there for a moment what my history as far as the courses that I have taken over the years. I went to a State school for undergraduate studies, Montclair State College and now it is Montclair State University, I believe I took a constitutional law class there and I believe it was a requirement for that class to read the Constitution. But then I went to law school; and as I am sitting here listening to your remarks, I don't believe that I was required in any of my courses, whether it is contracts or torts and the whole litany of courses that you are required in the first, second, and third year of law school, I don't believe that I was required as a law student to ever sit down and read the entire Constitution. Most of what you do in law school, actually, is the case method, in which case all you are doing is reading cases. And cases simply give you information of judges' interpretation of other cases.

I like that idea. CE credits, continuing education credits for Members of Congress.

There are two avenues to get people to do something, whatever their professions are. One is the CE way, and the other is just personal pressure. If you are in a profession, you have to be good at your profession to continue to be hired. I guess, in Congress, you have to be good in your profession to continue to be reelected. But the other way, I would suggest to constituents who may hear these remarks tonight, to ask their Member of Congress at the next town hall meeting, at the next town hall meeting when the questions come up just to ask the Members of Congress, ``By the way, when was the last time, if ever, that you have read the U.S. Constitution?'' I know there are a few folks out there like Roscoe Bartlett that carry the Constitution with them. But that would be a good question for the members of the public to ask their Members of Congress. Give them a quiz, ask if they know what any of the 10 amendments are to the Bill of Rights and so on.

Going back now to comments by the gentleman from Utah of the foundation or the formulation of the Bill of Rights, and I note the gentleman touched upon this. Part of the reason initially why there was a, I don't know if you want to say a pushback, but not so much of a strong desire, except for folks such as Mason and also what were called the anti-Federalists, a lot of people who talk about the Federalist Society and the Federalists who gave us this and Hamiltonians. But the anti-Federalists were on the other side. Part of the reason why there was a pushback and saying we don't need this was because the original push for creation of the current Constitution came after the Articles of Confederation. And originally, when they set up their, convention is not the right word but in essence that is what it was, to establish a new document, what they were intending to do was simply to create a new document or make amendments to the old Articles of Confederation to grant certain powers to a centralized government. So if their intent was to create or to establish powers for this new centralized government, there was not the mindset to say, well, we also at the same time need to set out for what the powers or rights of the individuals are; because that is taken as a given, that it is the people who have the rights and the powers, and we are just simply granting some of those rights or powers to the Federal Government to be able to better administer the commerce and trade and so on and so forth that the Articles was incompetent of doing.

So I think that was part of the discussion that was going on: If we are simply giving certain rights over here to a central government, we really don't need to establish it.

The anti-Federalists realized, however, that there was a need for it; that without establishing the paramount power of the individual and also the state, that this centralized government could consume the States. And that is exactly what Mason was talking about when he set forth his objections to it. It was, as I said before, I believe in September of 1787, it was during the final days of the Constitutional Convention that George Mason wrote the reasons for his refusal to sign the Constitution. He did it, interestingly enough, on the back of a committee of style report. Since we have committee reports up here, he simply wrote them all down. Copies of those, manuscript copies of that document were then circulated, and Mason sent copies to various individuals, including George Washington, a long-time friend of his. Washington, though, was on the other side of this issue. So, on November 22, the objections were printed in the Virginia Journal. Interestingly, again, it was done at the behest of Washington's secretary, and the reason they were printing them out publicly like this was so that Washington could publicly refute them. Those original documents are still with us today. They are in the Chapin Library in Williams College.

The preamble of his objections read: ``There is no declaration of rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the declarations of rights in the separate States are no security, nor are the people secure even in the enjoyment of the benefits of the common law.''

So Mason is simply saying here that I may live in a State, and my State may provide certain rights, but if the Federal Government's rights or powers are paramount to my own State's rights, the Federal Government can step in and take away any rights that my State constitution guarantees me, and I would lose those rights and privileges that are God given.

Now, a lot of this discussion by people listening is: How does this affect me? This is a lot of philosophical talking. Well, it isn't really. Day after day, as the gentleman from Utah mentioned before, we pass bill after bill, and some are signed into law. Some are perfunctory, naming of a school or post office, but others are profoundly important upon our daily lives. Do I have to remind the public about the PATRIOT Act and the discussion that entailed there? Later on I believe we will be discussing the FISA Court's issues and the powers; again, the issues of the powers of the various branches of the government and how they impact upon our individual liberties.

These are all fundamental questions that come back to not powers created

in the House or Senate or the executive, but rights or powers that we see in the documents, the Constitution of the United States.

It is germane that we bring these things up this year, 2008, a Presidential election year. Most of the candidates are speaking about change. Either side of the party is talking about change. But the fundamental question that the voter has to ask: Is the change that they are espousing and bringing about founded on any constitutional principles or are they simply giving us change for change's sake and change that does not have any constitutional powers or rights given to the Federal Government?

I see we have been joined by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), and if she would like to speak now, I appreciate her participation.

I thank the gentleman. I understand we have 3 minutes. I thank him for his elaboration on the importance of one of the critical elements of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment. I am just referring now to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), knowing that we only have 3 minutes left. Does she have further? I think she does.

I yield her now such time as she may consume.

Is there any time remaining?

In the concluding 30 seconds, I again thank the gentleman from Utah and the gentlelady for her comments as well. And as we continue this elaboration, education on the Bill of Rights and the overall Constitution, I hearken back to the gentleman's comments from Texas and the gentleman from Georgia, that we should all ask the seminal and basic question for whatever we do here in this Congress and of course in the Presidential election that is coming up as well when they make all the promises to us across the country. Is what they're proposing to do, is it in the Constitution?

Madam Speaker, ``I forbid,'' the Speaker, Democrat Speaker of the House, came to the floor and gave a translation of the Latin ``veto'' and explained to us that it means ``I forbid.''

Well, I can tell you the only veto that is occurring with regard to children's health care and care for the indigent poor is occurring here tonight at the hands of the Democrat majority.

The Democrat majority is vetoing. They are saying I forbid to move forward on this legislation. Republicans have expressed the desire to move forward and reached out and said in willingness to work together.

Just a moment ago, a freshman of the Democrat side of the aisle came to that podium and cited a figure that 80 percent of the American public, as he said, quote, wishes to advance children's health care for indigent poor children. The word ``advance'' means to move forward.

But Speaker Pelosi came to the floor and said, I forbid. I will veto moving forward tonight. Instead, put it on abeyance, put it on hold and say we have to put it off for another month.

What are they putting off? Well, they are trying to move forward later on on a bill that brings us socialized health care for illegal aliens, for adults, for children, for adults. No one has denied

that it's for adults. It is for childless couples and, by definition, is not for the poor. It is for middle class because, as we know, the median income in this country is $42,000. This bill will allow people upwards to $62,000 or $70,000 to be eligible for this program. By definition, therefore, it will provide for a middle-class program for universal health care.

Now, in conclusion, the Democrat conference leader explains why they are saying that they are forbidding moving forward and is very clear. He said, I enjoy politics, and that's what this bill is all about. It is about politics.

So to those who come to the floor tonight from the other side of the aisle and with a heartfelt passion that I believe is in their heart that they wish to move forward on moving advanced care for our children, I would ask your rank-and-file Members of that side of the aisle to talk to your leadership and say, Do not veto this effort. Do not say I forbid moving forward, and allow us to move forward on providing health care for indigent, poor children in this country tonight and vote ``no'' on this motion.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I appreciate that, and as I said in my remarks, I believe that there is heartfelt desire on the other side of the aisle to provide for, and I may have said indigent, poor children in this country. I do honestly believe that, from both sides of the aisle that the goal is the same thing, to try to provide care for that particular class of individuals.

What I disagree with the gentleman with is on a couple points you said. One specifically as far as the issue of a good, fair effort of negotiations on moving forward in this legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

I am informed that our side of the aisle, whether through Mrs. Biggert or otherwise, has presented to you or through your staff or otherwise a proposal back on November 15 of five pages of recommendations or suggestions as far as positions that could be done in this bill to move us both together. And here we are on December 12 and we have yet to receive a response from that.

As I come to the floor tonight, the first week of December, standing here in the Nation's Capitol of the greatest Nation on Earth, today, and has ever been, I think about our constituents back home in the great State of New Jersey and across the country as well as they look to our Nation's Capitol and expect us to do the responsible things on their behalf and on the behalf of freedom and liberty around the world as well. And a portion of that responsibility, of course, is handling their hard-earned tax dollars as they send them to us here in Washington to administer this government and spending, some of which was just addressed by the other side of the aisle.

For the next hour, I would like to engage in a discussion of these issues and shed some light on them, perhaps pointing out some of the fallacies in some of the arguments that we just heard from the other side of the aisle on these points.

As we begin there, I think there is no place better to begin as to try to address some of those points that have been raised. So at this time I would be honored to have a fellow colleague join us at the floor right now. I yield the floor to Ms. Foxx.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I think the gentlelady makes an interesting but important point at the same time, in that if we see our role here in Congress as to satisfy every desire, wish, whim, and I am not saying education is a whim, but desires, wish, needs, as well of our constituency back at home, in your State and mine, then of course that wish list or the desire list or that need list would go on ad infinitum. Then we can become here, as one may say, as the 51st State, the 51st State legislature, trying to solve every single issue, whether it's building new schools, filling in potholes back at home on the street in front of someone's house, or any other minutia that is back in the States. Obviously, some of these things are quite vital to you and I and our constituents, but the question is where do those dollars and cents come from, where do the responsibilities lie? If we are going to assume at all, then I can tell you that this budget is going to balloon even further than where the Democrats already want the budget to balloon.

But it is, just as you said before, an issue of, and I will probably say it 22 more times before the night is over, an issue of setting priorities, and part of setting priorities is setting what are our responsibilities. So you hit the nail on the head when you begin to look at that, how do you set priorities, what is our responsibility. If we can just hone in on what our responsibility is and if we can get doing those things well first, then everything else comes in time.

I yield back.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, and I do believe that the American public is paying attention; and they are doing better than that, they are reading between the lines. And they know when they are being talked to straight and honestly, just as you have been for the last few moments now setting forth what the record is with regard to what the Republicans' intentions have been and will be in the future with regard to getting the fiscal house in order of this country, and what the actual record has been for the last 11-plus, almost 12, months now, as we stand here under Democrat control.

Some of the numbers, I must say, that we talk about when we discuss this issue are quite large. It is really hard to get your hands around them, to get a handle on them. When you are talking about total spending in 2008 in the fiscal budget of $2.9 trillion, who can imagine that size number? When you are talking even a smaller number about an increase of $118 billion over 2007, $118 billion? We just can't relate to it.

What we have to all bring it right down to is the fact that this is the American public tax dollars at heart, and it does mean dollars and cents to people at home listening to us tonight, working all week long, paying their bills. It does mean something to the American family's budget, how the tax increases that have been proposed by the other side of the aisle are going to impact upon them and their lack of responsibility when it comes to the issue that curbing spending will have an impact upon them as well.

I am very pleased that I have been joined here tonight by another strong stalwart leader on this entire issue of fiscal responsibility. I have the pleasure of serving with him on several committees, but most importantly right now on the Budget Committee where he has been an outspoken critic of wanton expenses and spending, both now under Democratic control but also, too, when the Republicans controlled. So I would like to yield such time as he needs to the gentleman from Texas.

I again thank the gentleman from Texas for your work and for coming to the floor and for the points you make here.

You point out several significant points. One is the dichotomy between what has been said by the other side of the aisle, both before the election and now during the course of the year, and literally just moments ago before I came to the floor this hour as the Blue Dogs were on the floor speaking.

Let me take a moment to remind those here with us what was said by the other side when it comes to fiscal responsibility and their ability to get going rolling forward, because the gentleman from Texas made reference to the point we are likely to see an omnibus bill that none of us had an opportunity to consider, just as has been the case with other bills that have come to the floor.

Back on November 8, 2006, a little over a year ago, Democrat Speaker Pelosi said Democrats are prepared to govern and ready to lead.

Would that be true, whether she was prepared to govern and lead a year ago, here we are a year later, and we are still waiting for their appropriation bills to make the way through the process. Here we are in the second week in December, which means we are already, October, November, December, all those months, a quarter into the next fiscal year, and we are still waiting for those appropriation bills to make it through the House, Senate, and onto the President's desk. Were they really ready to lead a year ago if they can't get it done at this point in time? I guess not.

A year ago their Democrat caucus chairman, Mr. Clyburn, said Democrats offer a new direction which includes fiscal responsibility. If you just put the period after ``they offer a new direction,'' maybe that would be more telling. Their direction is deeper in debt for the country, and therefore for the American family's budget as well, because their solution is always increase taxes.

You might find that odd to think their solution is always to increase taxes if you simply listen to their rhetoric, because back in March of this year their majority leader said there are no tax increases in this budget, referring to the budget which came through the Budget Committee and eventually came to the floor of the House.

If there are no tax increases, why do we know that the tax increases are going up significantly, upwards to $400 billion on the American public because of the bills that the Democrat majority has put through?

I would point out to the gentleman from Texas that just prior to coming to the floor, the other side was speaking. It was the Blue Dog Democrats, and their solution, and you don't have to, as the gentlelady from North Carolina

says, read between the lines. Their solution to this issue of fiscal responsibility is only one-sided, and that is revenue, revenue enhancement, which is a nice way of saying tax increases.

How do we know that? The Record proves the case. The chart to my left shows the Republican minority attempted during various appropriation bills that were coming down to say that maybe the solution when your fiscal house is not in order is not always to raise taxes; maybe part of the solution is to rein in spending, something that every family has to do from time to time. When an American family has a problem with their budget and they are not able to make ends meet at the end of the month or week, what do they do? They usually have to rein in spending and set priorities. We suggested that. I know that the gentleman from Texas was part of this process as well to suggest perhaps what we should do is not make any draconian cuts, not say we are going to eliminate this program or that program, although some programs are certainly worthy of being eliminated. We had a much more modest proposal, and that was simply to say can we go for a 1-percent reduction in spending.

What was the Democrats' response to that? Well, on bill after bill after bill after bill, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven of the House appropriation bills proposed by the House Democrat majority, on each case we suggested can we afford a 1-percent across-the-board reduction to try to bring our House in fiscal responsibility.

I would definitely yield.

I appreciate that point. The gentleman is absolutely correct. It is not a reduction in overall spending so we can say today we are spending a dollar and tomorrow we would be spending 99 cents. In fact, today we are spending a dollar and we may be going up to $1.05, let's bring it down to $1.04-something as far as the actual spending. So the actual spending would still be going up, but we were suggesting going up on a slightly lower curve.

Democrats voting in favor of that modicum of fiscal responsibility. Well, we could get into single digits several times, with 10, 7, 11, 13, 11, 11, 11; only 11 votes out of that entire side of the aisle. I'm not sure where any of the Blue Dogs were on that one when they had the opportunity to rein in spending.

You know, I think if I recall correctly, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the reason they said that they could not be supportive of being more fiscally responsible and support any measure was that we were not being compassionate enough. But the element of compassion in Washington, DC. apparently is measured by simply how much more money you throw at the problem. Whether or not that program is efficient, whether that program has been rated as being adequate and getting the job done, the measure of compassion in Washington is always whether or not you are throwing even more money than the party next to you is doing.

I guess it comes down to a very simply thing like this: at the end of the day they want to be able to go home to their kids or grandkids and say, well, we were more compassionate than those Republicans because we spent more money than they did on a particular problem.

I shall yield, yeah.

Just a quick two points, one on the compassion issue is perhaps it is appropriate when you're dealing with money to say that if I'm taking money out of my own pocket and deciding that I will spend this on a particular program, I can honestly say if I wish to be so boastful that I am being compassionate for that individual.

But we know that the Federal Government is in debt right now. We are involved in deficit spending, which means that we are not only spending more money than we are currently taking in from the current taxpayers in this country, but also we are going into debt borrowing as well. So where are we borrowing from?

Well, we are borrowing from the next generation. So in that hypothetical conversation that a Member from the other side of the aisle must have when they go back to their children and say, well, I was compassionate today because I decided to vote ``no'' on all these fiscally responsible measures that the Republicans propose as far as reining in the spending on this side. Well, the compassion that the father or mother Member would have to say to his child, I am being compassionate because I am simply basically giving you an additional debt on my children, and my children and your children will be obligated for all of these expenses.

Now, to the other point that you were raising as far as the letters and the phone calls that you get from your members or from your constituents who are concerned about what we are doing here and that they are on the brink of foreclosure, or brink of fiscal solvency in their own right, well, that's perfectly understandable, especially in light of all that has transpired over the last 11 months with regard to new taxes that have been proposed by this Democrat majority. And I'll just refer to the chart here for a moment. And if you care to speak on any of these, you're welcome to.

These are new majority proposals, new taxes at every turn. I digress. What was Senator Hillary Clinton's statement with regard as running as a Presidential candidate, which I believe she said something to the effect of, I have more ideas than this country can afford to spend dollars on, or something to that effect. Well, apparently the other side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, has the same idea, that they have more proposals, more bright ideas to spend on than we

have money in the bank nor does the American family have in their bank as well. But they're going to still go and try and spend them, and they're going to do it by raising taxes.

So what do we have here? One, two, three, four, five, about seven different new tax proposals. Fiscal year 2008 budget $392.5 billion tax increase. Of course the gentleman from Texas recalls that we saw that at the very beginning of this year in about March or April of this year when we saw at that time that was the largest tax increase in U.S. history. The largest tax increase. And where is that going to be on? It's going to be on the backs of American families.

Secondly, $15 billion in new energy taxes. Well, we just passed 2 weeks ago, or last week I guess it was, we passed the energy bill, and that's even in addition to that as far as the tax increases that will be on energy production in this country. $5.8 billion in new tobacco taxes, $7.5 billion, again these are all in billions. If you can't get your hands around it, those large numbers, but that's what we're talking about. $7.5 billion in new taxes in the farm bill. A nickel- per-gallon tax increase on gas for infrastructure. So if we're not already paying enough at the pump and, remember, that also was one of the promises that the gentlelady from North Carolina was referring to before, a whole list, before you came in a whole list of promises made by the new majority that they were going to do.

One of them was an energy policy to reduce the price of gasoline. I can tell you in my neck of the woods prices are higher now substantially than when the majority came in. Now they want to add a nickel tax on top of that. A 50 cent-per-gallon tax, increase on gas for global warming. So now you're up to 55 cents on gas.

New taxes on homeownership by ending mortgage deductions and a new tax on every American with a private health plan. And actually this list is an abbreviated list that can go even further than this as far as taxes on the American public.

And with that I'll yield to the gentleman.

And if the gentleman will yield.

The gentleman and I also, besides being on the Budget Committee, I also have the honor of serving with him on the Financial Services Committee. And one of the issues that we're dealing with right now of course is with the subprime situation, subprime situation as far as the tightening of the credit market of course and the decline of home prices that is probably going to continue for some period of time, peaking with regard to the resets sometime in February or March of next year. But most experts would agree that the price of homes in this country on average will be going down 3, 4, 5 percent; and this will continue during the course of 2008. And it's one of the reasons, as well, why we see consumer confidence beginning to erode, after a substantial period, a lengthy period of where consumer confidence was up.

So when you think about the economic situation of the American family right now, energy costs going through the roof. I heard a figure the other day, I think they said on average American homeowners are going to spend around $2,000 more this year just to heat their homes. There's 2,000 bucks more out of their wallets. That's in addition to more money out of their pockets for gasoline, going to and from work. And that's in addition to the fact that the values of the house in certain pockets of this country will be going down. Their financial situation for the American public is being constricted.

And what is the solution that we are hearing from the other side of the aisle while the family budget is being tightened like that?

Well, it's Uncle Sam reaching out and saying, can we have, Washington, have 2, $3,000 more so we can spend it down here on who knows what. And some of those who-knows-whats, you remember earlier on in this year, with all the pork spending that was coming from the other side of the aisle, you recall this discussion of some of the pork that was thrown into legislation, $50 million for wild blueberry subsidies, farm bill, $17 million for the National Sports program, $20 million for the National Writing Project, $6 million for unused plane tickets, $36,000 for Kentucky to protect bingo halls and on and on infinitum.

Anyone who listens to the gentleman from Texas or the gentleman from Arizona talk about earmarks will know about the wasteful spending that goes on here. But that's what's going to continue to go on so long as Washington is controlled by the other side of the aisle that says we can continue to spend without limitation because we are not setting those priorities. But we will be willing, the Democrats will be willing to reach out and take more money out of the family's pocket. So that really is the issue here at home.

And I always remember this expression from the gentleman from Texas: the focus has got to be on the family budget and not on the Washington budget. The other side of the aisle obviously has misplaced that axiom and has put the focus entirely on the Washington budget, as opposed to the Federal, the individual budget.

Again, if you were here earlier when the other side of the aisle was saying that their solutions to the fiscal dilemma that we're in right now and the problems need to be addressed in a fiscally responsible manner, never once during that entire hour discussion, and never once during any of our hearings that I can recall in the Budget Committee, have we heard from them the basic suggestion that the answer lies in the spending side of the equation as opposed to revenue.

In Washington, we really do have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The revenue continues to come in at unprecedented rates, and that despite the fact that we had tax cuts going back as far as 2003, despite the fact that we lowered the tax rates for Americans so that they can keep more money in their pockets. The amount of revenue coming into Washington continues to go up, most times over the last several years, actually in the double-digit range year over year.

So it's not a revenue problem that we have experienced. It is a spending problem. I'm just waiting for the day that the other side of the aisle begins to realize that and will begin to work with us on some of these issues that you and I and others in the RSC as well have decided is the appropriate approach, reining in this budget as the family does.

And to get an idea, again, as to how that all plays out or actually where that all comes from, I gave you before a list, just a partial list of the tax increases that would be coming down the pike under the new Democrat majority.

Let's look at it as you would look at your own income tax return in a way. Part of the tax increases that you will see will go from the top to the bottom. So you can say compassion to either the richest or the poorest. The ordinary income tax at the top rates will be going up, 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Capital gains tax, which are not only for the rich, it's for our senior citizens as well who are relying on their retirement accounts, the annuities that they have put away during the course of their life, their pensions and the like which are invested, and now they're taking those funds out as far as capital gains. That's what they're living on on a fixed income. What do we see there with capital gains, 15 percent to 20 percent. That's a 5 percent increase, or actually a 30 percent increase over the 15 percent.

Dividends, likewise, increase 15 percent up to 39.6 percent, more than a double increase there.

Estate taxes. Well, estate tax, of course, is something we've debated on this floor for a long time, for the small farmer, for the small business person. Their taxes are going to go from 0 percent to 55 percent, basically making a lot of small farmers and little families when they sit down at the end of the year saying we may actually have to sell our business to hold on, and this is why.

Finally, for the lower income tax bracket, child tax credit from $1,000 to $500. Now, to people who actually really need that money, that extra $500 can be crucial. That could be a month's rent payment. That could be a food bill. That could be a car payment. They're reducing it from $1,000 down to $500.

And finally, the lowest income earners, the bottom income individuals and families in this country, they, too, will be bearing the brunt of the tax increases and the prolific spending that we see down here by seeing the lowest tax bracket go from 10 percent to 15 percent. Percentage-wise, of course, that's a 50 percent tax increase when you think about it, from 10 percent up to 15 percent, as far as a percentage increase.

So from the richest to the poorest will all be suffering, and the dollars and cents, as you make out, the gentleman from Texas, very well, comes out to how they pay their bills at the end of the month.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman again.

You can see this sort of going on in a microcosm from the State that I'm from, the great State of New Jersey, where a poll was done a month or so ago I understand that said if you had the opportunity, would you leave the State, and 50 percent of the respondents said, yes, they would. If you look at the actual demographic numbers over the last year, between 72- or 76,000 New Jerseyans have left the State of New Jersey. One of the reasons why they indicate they've left the State is because taxes are so high. They cannot afford to live in that State. So the individuals leave, the families leave, businesses leave the State, which will cause obviously a death spiral, if you will, to the overall economy of the State of New Jersey if it's going to continue.

I'm sure the gentleman would like to have them. I would like them to stay in the State of New Jersey and just see that our fiscal house is set in order in the State of New Jersey, where the Democrats just raised the sales tax by a penny and corporate taxes as well, and property taxes continue to go through the roof.

But that's a microcosm of the United States of America as well. People are doing what Ronald Reagan once said, and that is they're voting with their feet and leaving the State. Businesses will be doing the exact same thing as we begin to see taxes go up across the board in the United States if those hard decisions are not being made of prioritization.

I believe we're getting near the end of our time here. I will extend a hand to the other side of the aisle, as we continue this debate during the course of the week, to the Blue Dogs or any other Members who came down to the floor during this night or other nights as well who are looking for fiscal responsibility. If we can come to an agreement that the answer is not raising taxes but, rather, reining in spending, I believe it was the RSC a year ago that came up with a list of, correct me if I'm wrong, approximately a half a billion dollars in savings in overall spending by the Federal Government. We'd be glad to share that information with the Democrat majority if they would just take even just less than 5 percent of that to rein in their spending to keep it under the control of where the American public would like to have it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join the faculty, parents, and students at the Frisch School in Paramus New Jersey in celebrating the dedication of their new campus. The new 14- acre property will help this yeshiva continue to practice educational excellence and instill hundreds of young people each year with sustenance for their minds, bodies, and souls.

Since its founding in 1972 by Rabbi Menachem Meier and Alfred Frisch, the school has grown from a student body of a mere dozen to more than 620. The Frisch School curriculum is rigorous--offering a steady course of core subjects as well as a wide variety of advanced placement classes. Students leave Frisch well versed in history, liberal arts, science and math, and the cultural arts. But, they also leave well versed in Judaic heritage and values. As a college preparatory school, students often go on to higher education, well-prepared by their Frisch experience. And, each year, a good portion of the student body goes to Israel to spend a year in study as well.

The new Henry & Esther Swieca Family Campus, Mordecai & Monique Katz Academic Building, and Zayat Athletic Center are the result of hard work by a dedicated community of parents, faculty, and students. The extraordinary generosity of dozens of families has enabled the School to literally double its size and provide even more educational opportunities to its students.

The Frisch School counts among its notable alumni Elie Katz, Mayor of Teaneck; Arthur Lenk, Israeli Ambassador to Azerbaijan; and Rabbi Daniel Nevins, Dean of the Rabbinical School of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Under the guidance of its President, David Rauch; its Principal, Dr. Kalman Stein; and its Executive Director, Elaine Weitzman, I am certain that still more leaders will emerge from the Frisch School ranks, and I look forward to seeing the wonderful contributions they make to our community and our society.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the team members of Q's Crew, which was recently honored by the Greater North Jersey Chapter of the National MS Society for raising the most money as a rookie team during the annual MS walk this past April. They also received the Mission Possible Award for raising more than $20,000 in that endeavor.

Q's Crew gets its name from Gloria Marquis, who succumbed to MS just prior to the walk. Her son, Joe, and his then-fiancee, now-wife, Tatiana, jointly captained this team. Gloria lived with MS for many years. And, her family lived through it with her with courage and grace and dignity. In the end, Gloria regrettably was unable to make it to Joe and Tatiana's wedding in August; but her spirit was ever-present and she will surely be watching over this young couple's life together.

Tatiana also serves as my district director and I know firsthand of her extraordinary sense of public service. The energy and determination that Tatiana and Joe have demonstrated in raising funds for and awareness of multiple sclerosis and the example they have provided for other families living with MS are a tremendous contribution to the community in which they have grown up and now live as husband and wife.

I was proud to join Tatiana, Joe, and the rest of Q's Crew at the MS walk in April. And, I continue to be proud of all that they do to fight

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4118, a bill that will exclude from gross income, payments received by the grieving families and victims of the tragic Virginia Tech massacre from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund.

Madam Speaker, April 16, 2007 is a day that will forever be seared into the collective memory of the American people as a day of terror, tragedy, loss, and mourning. It was a day when we were reminded of the frailty of life; and a day when we were reminded how much we, as a Nation, value the sanctity and freedom of our schools, colleges, and universities. For on that day, we learned that because of the murderous intentions of one person, the lives of 32 students and faculty members at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University had been snuffed out. One of the victims of this tragedy, Matthew La Porte, was a 20-year-old student from Dumont, New Jersey, and a constituent of mine.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, and in response to the generosity of people across the country, Virginia Tech founded the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund. Many donors contributed to this fund in memory of the victims of the massacre, and in support of those who survived it. Today, the fund has received contributions of over $7 million. And while no amount of money can ever replace the loss of a loved one, this legislation will ensure that all of the victims, families of victims, and survivors of this tragedy receive payments from this fund without interference from the Internal Revenue Service.

Madam Speaker, it is during times of great tragedy that the kindness and generosity of the American people is most apparent. It is in that spirit of generosity, and in the memory of all the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, that I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4118.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the citizens who have spent the last 2\1/2\ years working to keep the people of Sussex County safe from methamphetamines as part of the Sussex County Meth Task Force. My staff and I have had the honor of working with these committed individuals over the years and have borne witness to the gusto with which they have performed their work.

Only a few years ago, as local meth labs were busted and drug use seemed to be on the rise, the people of Sussex County did not stand idly by. Instead, they formed this task force and set to training local law enforcement, informing citizens, and quite literally taking back their streets. They have trained more than 700 volunteer firefighters and others. They have distributed informative ``meth packets'' to over 165 local retailers. They have worked with local educators and organizations to raise public awareness of the scourge of meth.

The results have been impressive and local law enforcement now feel confident that methamphetamines have not been able to establish a foothold in Sussex County, New Jersey. And so they are disbanding their formal group and spreading the word to show others how they've been so successful, including in a presentation at the statewide League of Municipalities conference earlier this week.

Many, many individuals deserve credit for the good work of the Task Force. Tom Davis, the Sussex County Fire Marshal, has served as Task Force Chairperson, shepherding the group through its several goals. Tom Cooney, of the Sussex County Narcotics Task Force, has helped to train hundreds of first responders and others. Dan Coronato has helped to put the Sussex County Task Force in touch with others who can benefit from their model. And Becky Carlson, Barbara Adolphe, Meg Samuel-Siegel, and Jane Butz have been the glue holding them all together, serving as a constant source of information and direction.

I commend the members of the Sussex County Meth Task Force for their extraordinary service to their community and I look forward to continuing to work with them all to keep our streets safe and our schools and neighborhoods drug-free.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Mary Orr, Principal at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School in Wyckoff, New Jersey, for her extraordinary commitment to high standards of education excellence.

Mary Orr has taken learning to a new level, integrating fresh technology, new education tools, and incredible enthusiasm into the approach at Abraham Lincoln. She mixes theory-driven number-crunching with a very personal touch at her school, encouraging teachers to find new and creative ways to help their students ``learn to be learners.'' Mary Orr has developed her own method for using spreadsheets to chart test scores and provide teachers with easy-to-follow graphs on their classroom achievements. She also encourages her teachers to use technology to give students new ways to access information and develop a real love of learning.

An educator in Wyckoff since 1969, Mary Orr is being honored now as New Jersey's Distinguished Principal by the U.S. Department of Education and National Association of Elementary School Principals. She has long been eligible to retire, but she continues to give her all to the students, teachers, and parents of Abraham Lincoln Elementary School.

In fact, she continues to pursue enhancement of her own already- impressive professional credentials. She has already earned a master's degree in language arts and a doctorate in education administration, yet Mary Orr is pursuing a second master's in educational technology. And, all the while, she also remains an active part of the community, spending time with the local Rotary Club and earning the 2004 Wyckoff Family YMCA's First Annual William E. Boye Jr. Humanitarian Award.

From her enthusiastic spirit to her detail-driven approach, Mary Orr has made Abraham Lincoln Elementary School a model for all to emulate. I commend her on her good work there.