Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the late Jack Kurlander, who spent a lifetime turning Sussex County, New Jersey into a destination for tourists and recreation-seekers. His vision truly transformed this picturesque region of the Garden State.

Born in Rhode Island and raised in Nutley, New Jersey, Jack Kurlander had been New Jersey's boys tennis champ while at Nutley High School. But, his love of sports extended to golf and skiing, as well. Spurred by his love of outdoor sports and recreation, Jack Kurlander set about turning this quiet Highlands region into a popular destination for a variety of outdoor sporting activities.

Jack Kurlander and his business partners, first the Fitzgerald Family and later the Mulvihill Family, were the force behind the development of ski resorts, tennis and swim clubs, picnic grounds, spa resorts, and major golf courses over the course of four decades. The Ballyowen Golf Course, in fact, is the top-rated public golf course in New Jersey.

Long before his vision took hold, Jack Kurlander was an avid inventor. He manufactured the first nylon tennis nets with his friend John Fitzgerald in the basement of a Nutley bakery. He created a ski- waxing machine, using his mother's disassembled washing machine to develop his invention.

This evening, outdoor enthusiasts will join together to dedicate the Memorial Garden at the 7th Hole of the Black Bear Golf Course and to pay tribute to their friend and patron. Jack suffered a heart attack in 1977, but it barely slowed him down from his mission to transform this beautiful region. Nearly thirty years later, a heart attack took his life in 2006 at the age of 76. It is said that Jack Kurlander was able to see things that were unapparent to anyone else. His gift for vision and his love of life are truly missed.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that today we can honor a true American hero, Aaron Weaver of Inverness, Florida. Weaver is yet another example of the dedication of many men and women serving in our military today.

Weaver has a great family history of service and I am proud to work with his uncle, Naval Academy graduate and veteran Bill Schmidt, on behalf of the veterans in the fifth district of New Jersey. I know that Bill will miss him dearly but I also know that he is proud of his courageous nephew.

Weaver served in Mogadishu with the rangers who were immortalized by the movie Black Hawk Down. These brave Americans held out against superior numbers of armed rebels and conducted their mission in Somalia with dedication and dignity. For his actions in Somalia he was awarded a Bronze Star.

When Warrant Officer Weaver was diagnosed with his illness he chose to fight both cancer and the forces of Saddam Hussein. While he could have chosen a medical discharge he instead pressed to be with his comrades defending our Nation. If there were American soldiers defending freedom on foreign shores then Weaver wanted to be with them.

It's only proper that we should honor this hero with a lasting memorial in his community. I hope that his courage and sacrifice will not be forgotten and that he can serve as an inspiration to those who are serving our Nation now in the field of battle.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two generous patrons of the arts and of education, David and Carol Burgess Lackland, whose service to the communities of northwest New Jersey is nearly unparalleled.

As a 1954 graduate of Centenary College, the only 4-year college in northwest New Jersey, Carol has long been a strong supporter of her alma mater. Her husband, David, also serves as a trustee for the college. Tomorrow, thanks to their extraordinary support, Centenary will break ground on the new David and Carol Lackland Center, which will serve as a hub for cultural events, education, and activities not only for the college but for the region.

The 68,000-square-foot performing arts center will include a 500-seat state-of-the-arts theater, a dance studio, a blackbox performance space, and more. The center will include classroom space where students will learn about the latest techniques and technologies available for communications and performing arts from backstage as well.

Already, Centenary offers some of the most expansive cultural opportunities in the region. The Centenary Performing Arts Guild, which has been around for about two decades and is the only Actors' Equity theater in the region--presents more than 130 performances a year. With this new facility, the region will have even greater access to high- quality performing arts programming, and I commend David and Carol Burgess Lackland for their contribution to the college community and the surrounding area.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will consider H. Res. 106, affirming the United States' record on the Armenian genocide. I will ask my colleagues on the committee to carefully consider this resolution and the vast body of evidence that supports its conclusion.

The allied powers of the First World War early on recognized that the Turkish Government at that time was committing crimes against humanity by perpetrating the organized slaughter of Armenians. The U.S. Congress of that time affirmed these crimes in hearings and resolutions. Though the chief organizers of this crime were convicted of the massacres by the Turkish military courts, they never were made to pay any penalty.

We fully recognize now the friendship of our allies in Turkey, but it cannot change the past. I hope that there can be some reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and that a proper acknowledgment of the crimes of the past can allow them to move forward into the future of peace and mutual understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood on this floor several times now speaking about the negative impact that NCLB, No Child Left Behind, has had on our children's education and, consequently, on our children's future as well.

Tonight I will speak continuously about that as well and the problems until NCLB are fixed. I will continue to speak out against NCLB until parents and educators are empowered to make the changes that will ensure an environment in which schools can teach and children can learn.

More and more information is coming to light attracting more and more supporters to the belief that not only should No Child Left Behind not be reauthorized at this time, but, actually, it should be completely scrapped.

Yesterday, in the New York Times, Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at NYU and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, wrote, and I quote, ``the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 is fundamentally flawed,'' and that it should be ``overhauled, not just tweaked.''

She continued, ``The latest national tests, released last week, show that academic gains since 2003 have been modest, less even than those posted in the years before the law was put in place. In eighth-grade reading, there have been no gains at all since 1998. The main goal of the law--that all children in the United States will be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014--is simply unattainable. The primary strategy--to test all children in those subjects in grades three through eight every year--has unleashed an unhealthy obsession with standardized testing that has reduced the time available for teaching other important subjects. Furthermore, the law completely fractures the traditional limits on federal interference in the operation of local schools.''

Let me repeat that last point, because I believe that it is a missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. NCLB ``completely fractures the traditional limits on Federal interference in the operation of local schools.''

Many times I have referenced the work of Neil McCluskey of Cato Institute, a scholar who shares my concerns about educational policy. He did a study in 2007 entitled, ``End It, Don't Mend It,'' and he concluded that ``NCLB has been ineffective in achieving its intended goals, has had negative, unintended consequences, is incompatible with policies that do work, is at the mercy of a political process that can only worsen its prospects, and is based on the premises that are fundamentally flawed.''

Using several shocking statistics, McCluskey points out how States are lowering, not raising, their educational standards. They are creating a race to the bottom to ensure that their schools will not be denied Federal funding.

Let me give you just a couple. In 2003, the State of Texas decreased the number of questions on their test in order for it to be approved, from 24 to 20. In Michigan, when 1,500 schools were placed on the NCLB need improvement list, the State lowered the percentage of students required to pass the test in English from 75 down to 42 percent.

The State of Ohio backloaded its adequate yearly progress goals, aiming to increase proficiency by a mere 3 percent, 3.3 percent for the first 6 years, but then said they're going to do a 40

percent increase in the last 6 years. They did this of course in hopes of meeting NCLB's unrealistic goal of having 100 percent proficiency in math and reading in all schools. And there are other studies as well with similar conclusions.

In 2005 the Fordham Foundation compared the State proficiency scores to NAEP scores, with striking results. The NAEP tests have generally been maintained at standards over the year, and so it's a good barometer.

In the Fordham study, of the 20 States that have reported gains on their tests in 8th grade reading proficiency, mark this, only three showed any progress at even the basic level for NAEP. That means 20 States are saying that since No Child Left Behind things are going better. But if you compare it to NAEP, really not. Only three.

Furthermore, in a new study released today by the foundation, researchers note that in at least two grades, twice as many States in the U.S. have seen their tests become easier, not harder, since NCLB was put into effect. And that's my point here. All the studies are showing that since NCLB went on the books, States are racing to the bottom when it comes to trying to establish their tests, the exact opposite of what this administration tried to do.

I think all of us should be startled, at the very least, by this. Appropriately, we should be outraged. You know, if Washington is forcing our schools to basically lower their standards, putting our children's education at risk, we must act now in this House to reverse the trend. And with NCLB reauthorization coming up now, now's the time to do it.

To that end I've submitted a bill, the LEARN Act, Local Education Authority Returns Now. It's H.R. 3177. And what it will do is very simply, it would allow States to opt out of the Federal NCLB system completely, and, at the same time, allow the States to retain their funding.

I think, to me, it's very obvious that States have grown tired of Washington dangling money over their heads and holding them accountable. And I thank the Speaker for allowing us to address the issue of the reform that is needed in the area of NCLB and talking about the LEARN Act.

Mr. Speaker, the majority party ascended to power with a promise that they would make this Congress the most open and ethical Congress ever. Most open and ethical indeed.

Perhaps the majority party should have said something like, We will be open and ethical when it suits our purpose. That wouldn't have been a catchy phrase maybe on the campaign trail, but at least it would have been honest.

For instance, the majority promised to clean up the earmarking process, but so far that, too, has been a hollow promise.

Recently, we had the SCHIP and it was riddled with hidden earmarks. And yet not one sponsor of these provisions has ever been identified, and they have denied that there's any earmarks in them whatsoever.

Now the Republican Party has now offered a simple resolution to clean up the process of earmarks, but not a single Democrat has signed on to this resolution.

I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in the majority, to allow for a real debate on ethics and earmarks. Let the House debate H.R. 479 so that we can have an open and honest discussion and we can truly get to what you promised, an open and ethical Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bernard J. Milano of Allendale, New Jersey for his dedicated support for the 35,000 Boy Scouts of North Jersey. Last week, Mr. Milano was honored by the Iaoapogh Mountains District of the Northern New Jersey Council for the Boy Scouts for his long record of service to these Scouts. This District directly serves more than 3,100 young people.

Bernie Milano is supportive of a number of worthy organizations beyond just the Boy Scouts. In addition, he serves as a member of President Bush's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and as chair for the business school advisory boards at North Carolina A&T State University, from which he has an Honorary Doctorate, and local Ramapo College. Furthermore, he is a member of the Ramapo College Foundation Board of Governors, of which he served as chair from 2002-06.

Mr. Milano is also a Senior Warden of the Church of the Epiphany in Allendale, a member of the Newark Episcopal Diocese Commission on Ministry and Audit Committee, and a member of the National Episcopal Church Foundation Board of Directors, of which he served as chair for 6 years.

Mr. Milano has served on the Allendale Board of Adjustment and board of education. He was a founding trustee of the Allendale Foundation for Education Excellence. And, he serves on several national boards, including for the Points of Light Foundation and Business Civic Leadership Center. Trained as a CPA with a B.S. in Accounting from Temple University, Mr. Milano is president of three not-for-profit organizations: KPMG Foundation, KPMG Disaster Relief Fund, and the PhD Project Association, which is a $6 million collaborative effort between corporate and academic America to promote greater diversity in the business world.

Mr. Milano has been active with the Scouts for over a decade. The father of six and grandfather of another six, he and his wife, Sharon Pierson, understand the value of scouting in providing boys and young men with positive outlets for their energies and talents. Through scouting, they develop character and leadership skills and promote citizenship and fitness. This is only possible because people like Bernie Milano give of their time, their energy, and their resources. I commend him for his service to these boys.

Madam Speaker, despite recent aggressive behavior from China, Taiwan's democracy has continued to grow and flourish. I am pleased that this House can come together today in support of Taiwan.

China's industrial buildup in the last decade has been unprecedented. While Chinese citizens have been taking advantage of their increased economic freedom, the Chinese government has been using this economic growth to build up their military and position new and dangerous weapons along the Taiwan Strait.

The Taiwanese request to purchase 66 F-16 fighter planes will assist them in countering the growing threat of Chinese militarism. These weapons will allow the Taiwanese to balance the threat of hundreds of Chinese fighters and bombers that are stationed just on the other side of the Strait.

We have always stood by our friends in Taiwan and today we call on the President to ensure that that relationship stays as strong as ever. This House supports protecting the freedom of the Taiwanese people. Today, Taiwan is proof that a nation can successfully move from one- party rule to democracy and maintain its dynamic economy. I am hopeful that Chinese citizens can one day experience the same liberty as their counterparts in Taiwan.

You spoke about the flood bill and the problem we had here. Anytime we stifle debate, and that is what occurred when the Democrats did this, they alter substance.

What we were trying to do with an amendment that went through committee and we worked on with the chairman's staff, an amendment that the chairman said withdraw the amendment from committee and he will make sure that it gets through Rules and to the floor, our amendment simply said we should no longer have the rich and the wealthy who live in these great mansions on the coast and what have you, have them be subsidized by the poor widow in the house right across the street. We thought that was absurd. This amendment would have fixed that situation. The chairman was on board with us. He went to the committee and testified in favor of it as well.

What happened was the Rules Committee decided to not allow the amendment to come to the floor. So at the end of the day, we have a bill where the rich are still being subsidized by the poor. Substance was altered by the stifling of debate.

I will commend the chairman of the committee for all he did and by not voting ``yes'' on the rule because even he, a Democrat chairman, saw the error of their ways in what they did.

I would just conclude by concurring with the gentleman from Georgia on this. Although we are in the minority here, this is not an issue for the minority; this is for half of America. And it doesn't matter whether the Americans watching tonight are Democrat or Republicans. Their voices are being silenced because they cannot have their voices heard through us in the Rules Committee and have their important issues made part of the process.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow, the people of Franklin Lakes, New Jersey and their neighboring communities throughout Bergen County will celebrate the 85th anniversary of the Borough. A full day of rides, demonstrations, music, and great carnival food will mark the birthday celebration, which culminates in a fireworks display.

From as far back as the 17th Century, people have been drawn to this picturesque area. The Lenape Indians first traveled here to fish and make winter camp. Later as Dutch settlers pushed west, they, too, made what we now know as Franklin Lakes their home.

In 1876, the Walker Atlas shows that the community had grown from its first business--Daniel Youman's Grist Mill on Franklin Lake--to a thriving community of shops, schools, mills, hotels, and about 100 residences. In years to follow, rail and road expansion would bring even more people to the Franklin Lakes area. And, in 1922, Franklin Lakes officially incorporated, detaching itself from Franklin Township and electing its first Mayor, William V. Pulis.

Between 1876 and 1980, Franklin Lakes grew to a whopping 8,500 people. And, today, nearly 10,500 people live there. Though it has grown in size and stature, it has always maintained its sense of neighborly quiet. The sense of friendship and community is evident in every nook and cranny of Franklin Lakes. It is my hope that the people of Franklin Lakes will maintain this vision for another 85 years into the future and then some, and I congratulate them all on this milestone occasion.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 125th anniversary of The House of the Good Shepherd retirement community in Hackettstown, New Jersey. For over a century, this community has provided seniors with a place to call home.

In 1882, five Episcopal Congregations founded The House with a 20- room rental building in Orange, New Jersey, rented for the sum of $400. Less than a decade later, they had outgrown that building and a new home was built in Orange housing three dozen women. In the 1960s, they expanded their offering to 175 residences on a wooded, 15-acre site in Hackettstown. The Musconetcong River and Stephens State Park offer a serene and quiet atmosphere. And, the excellent staff offer a loving and friendly environment for the seniors who live there.

The House of the Good Shepherd is equipped to offer its residents a variety of care options from independent apartments to assisted living suites to skilled nursing residences. It is an active community where seniors to go live their golden years to the fullest.

This year's anniversary is somewhat bittersweet for the residents of this community as their Executive Director of more than ten years has announced his retirement. Fred Heleine has ministered to and served the needs of these seniors admirably and with love and compassion since 1995, and as he said in announcing his retirement to his extended family of The House of the Good Shepherd, ``I leave The House with much gratitude for the privilege of having been there.'' I know that the gratitude is mutual, and I join the community in thanking Fred for his fine service.

This Sunday, at a gala celebration fitting of such a momentous milestone, the residents and staff of The House of the Good Shepherd will be joined by members of the extended community. To mark this special anniversary, they will present their first annual ``Distinguished Friend of The House'' award to Claudia Conway, a longtime resident of Hackettstown and supporter of The House.

Ms. Conway's service has been remarkable, particularly her participation on the Foundation Advisory Council, and she was a natural choice for this first award. But her dedication to The House not only speaks volumes of her goodness and compassion, but also of the worthiness of her cause. The House of the Good Shepherd is a phenomenal community and I wish it the best for another century of service.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the men and women who volunteer their time, skills, and energy to the people of Ramsey, New Jersey through their dedicated service to the Ramsey Ambulance Corps.

Since 1953, when the Ramsey Ambulance Corps got its first ambulance and responded to its first calls, the faithful volunteers of this organization have been an integral part of the community. From its birth more than 50 years ago, the Corps has blossomed to a strong and steady group that today responds to more than 1100 calls for help a year.

And, the Ramsey Ambulance Corps volunteers do far more than respond to calls for ambulance assistance. They also loan important medical equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, to people in need. They operate a bike corps for special events. They train people in emergency medical services, like CPR. And, they help with important search and rescue efforts.

This weekend, I will join these fine public servants and their neighbors at the dedication of two new ambulances. One will be dedicated to Mr. Lawrence R. Inserra, Sr. His family, a pillar of the community, generously donated the funds to purchase one of these new ambulances. The Inserra Family is in its third generation running a local supermarket chain of more than 20 stores in North Jersey and nearby New York. They have used their wealth to make North Jersey a better place to work, live, and raise a family, including through an endowed chair in Italian and Italian American Studies at my alma mater, Montclair State University.

The other will be dedicated to one of the committed leaders of the Ambulance Corps, Michael F. Adams. In addition to being a life member of the Ramsey Ambulance Corps, the Ramsey Police Reserve, and the Ramsey Rescue Squad, he is also completing his thirty-third term as the Borough of Ramsey's Emergency Management Coordinator. As a CERT Program Manager and Instructor and head of the Ramsey Citizen Corps Council, he is one of the Borough's leading advocates for citizen preparedness.

I commend these fine citizens for their commitment to their community and the example of service that they demonstrate daily.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the faculty, staff, and students at Bergen Technical High School who have partnered with State Farm to promote safe teen driving.

Far too many young people lose their lives senselessly to motor vehicle accidents, largely because of their youth and inexperience behind the wheel. In fact, 14 percent of all motor vehicle deaths are teen drivers and car crashes is the number one killer of teens today. State Farm has developed a phenomenal program called Project Ignition, committed to reversing this trend and saving teens on the road. This popular program partners with local schools to develop ad campaigns to promote safe driving in ways that really speak to young people.

Bergen Technical High School is one of only 25 schools nationwide chosen to participate in this program. Their visual graphic design program is creating a series of public service announcements for television, posters, and more to speak to teens about the importance of driving responsibly and safely. Streetwise, the name of their program, promotes six character education pillars--respect, responsibility, citizenship, fairness, caring, and trustworthiness--in ways that really resonate with their target audience.

Today, the participants in this innovative program celebrated their work while trying to break the Guinness Book of World Records record for the longest message/graffiti scroll using their Streetwise message. They will be joined by fellow students from other Bergen County High Schools and supportive parents and citizens throughout the County. All of Bergen County is proud of their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we come today on the floor in September, 9 months into the 110th Congress under Democrat control where they promised us the most open, honest and transparent Congress in U.S. history. And looking back at yesterday on their last rules decision, what have they wrought? Just the opposite.

I come to the floor today, as well, to oppose this rule and to oppose the closed-door proceedings and partisanship that the other side has exhibited yesterday with the way that they handled their rule. Their methodology is basically closing out the voices of almost half of Americans when they want to have their voice heard here in this Congress. I, too, came and submitted an amendment to the committee. Although the other side indicates that 13 amendments were approved, there were no single Republican-initiated amendments approved last night. That is because, as I said, half of America's voices were silenced.

Now, the amendment to the rule that I proposed is quite simple, to try to bring back fairness to this flood program, a flood program that most Americans would support in a bipartisan approach. Picture this, if you will, out on

perhaps the California Coast you have a mansion, a PreFIRM home, a mansion owned by some megastar, a movie star millionaire in that home. He is paying one rate for insurance. Next door, literally across the street, is this little 1970s home, a little bungalow, owned by a poor widow. She now is paying higher rates for her insurance. She, in essence, is subsidizing that multimillionaire movie star on the other side in this lavish megamansion that he may own by this poor widow.

Can't we do something about that? Yes. I propose an amendment that would bring actuarial fairness to this system. And I should say this, too. This was discussed in committee. The chairman of the committee said that he would work with me. My staff did work with his staff. I did work with the chairman. And the chairman even agreed with our language. The chairman even agreed, and I believe testified before the Rules Committee, that what we were doing here was bringing fairness to the committee and the rules process last night.

So, at this time, in my closing comments, I would just ask if the gentlewoman would be willing to enter into a colloquy to explain why is it that she will not, and the Rules Committee would not, enter into a discussion on this bill in Rules, and why is it that they wish to exclude this rule, and why would the gentlewoman in the Rules Committee decide that we should not have fairness, and why should the poor widow be subsidizing the rich and the millionaires in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman if she can explain why this amendment was excluded last night.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee is different this year from last year, and that is obviously apparent, because only Democrat amendments would come through, and last year both Democrat and Republican amendments would go through.

If the gentlewoman could explain on the merits? I would gladly yield to the gentlewoman if the gentlewoman could address the point as to why this particular amendment was not considered to be appropriate to be considered for this rule, and why it is that we should have the poor and the infirm and those people who have been living in their homes for decades have to subsidize the rich and the wealthy in this country.

I would yield to the gentlewoman, if she would explain why the inequity should continue.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee under Democrat control has included 13 Democrat amendments to their Democrat-proposed legislation here today. And if that is the new openness and the change in the process that they are presenting to us, should we anticipate that there is no need for Republicans to present any amendments to the Rules Committee in the future because they will only consider Democrat amendments? That is a sorry state for us today.

That is exactly the case. I presented this amendment in committee and presented it and discussed it in committee. At that time, we entered into a colloquy in committee and the chairman said that perhaps we could work through this because there were some other technical aspects that needed to be changed. I was more than willing to take the chairman at his word, and he lived up to his word to the extent that for the next several weeks and months following the committee hearing, we did have a back-and-forth between staff and also the chairman on the floor, literally himself, and he was supportive of the final product we had.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to come to the floor tonight as we wrap up this week's session in Congress. It was just last week, Monday, the 17th of September, when we celebrated the 220th anniversary of the signing of our founding document of this country, the Constitution. It was on September 17, 1787, 39 revolutionary and visionary Founding Fathers changed the course of history in this land and the world as well.

It came about after months of deliberations. What they did was succeed in securing liberties and freedoms that were, quite honestly, unimaginable to previous civilizations. I should just note, to commemorate this and honor the civilization's most ingenious governmental guidelines that we recognized last week, I introduced House Resolution 646 to that end.

Tonight I come to the floor, as we do often as part of the Constitutional Caucus, to raise up the issue of the Constitution, that seminal document, that document that we should be looking to each and every day when House Members and Senate Members come to the floor after having deliberated various issues and bills, and taking out of their pocket their voting card and sliding into that slot, to ask themselves: Is what we are about to vote on constitutional? Is it within the confines of the Founding Fathers' document?

Tonight I am joined by my colleagues, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and I believe shortly the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) as well, as we deliberate and discuss the issues of the Constitution.

We do this for several purposes. It is an illuminating event we believe both for Members of Congress and also for the general public as well, an opportunity to explore and expand and expound upon this important document. Because if we lose that, if we lose that as a guiding principle, obviously there will be nothing as a guide for us or a restriction into the role we are elected to abide by.

Tonight we will touch on various issues, all within the confines of that document, but we are generally going to stay within the area of voting. Some legislation that we have looked at in the past, and I will probably touch upon a little later on, and some legislation that is coming down the pipe fairly shortly, to address some of the issues that people have raised throughout the country with regard to the veracity of past voting patterns in this country.

So at this point, I would like to turn the microphone over to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for his comments, who I always appreciate Mr. Bishop's insight.

And I appreciate the gentleman, if he has time for some queries on it as well.

First of all, let me say I am impressed by

your opening comment, and I guess this is just a typical reflection of your dedication to an issue. Your opening comment was you began to look at this issue back in the year 2000, and here we are at 2007. And knowing your dedication to this issue, to the way you handle matters is that you have been looking at it ever since then and investigating it to make sure that you come up with the very best answer. So I commend you for that. This is just reflective of how you handle just about every issue that I have ever known you to deal with, that you stick onto it early on and then stick with it right to the end.

Before I play a little of devil's advocate with you on this, if I may, the gentleman from Utah is probably a better historian than I am. But it is interesting, when we talk about paper ballots and ballots in general, people today probably have somewhat of a misconception about the veracity or accuracy and the legitimacy, I guess you might say, of past elections in this country, way before we had those electronic machines today or the mechanical machines that you were referring to earlier. I know the stories from reading textbooks and school books and what have you is that election days in this country years ago were celebratory days more so than they are today. Nowadays, we have to really push people to the polls. Years ago, it was something people, I don't want to say, spontaneously wanted to do, but they actually were more excited about it.

Although, one of the ways I understand that they were encouraged to come to the polls was through town celebrations. And that is, in the county seats or that sort of thing, the candidates who were running for office would host large parties, and what would happen is people would come from the countryside and the hillsides and what have you into the county seat where they would be voting. And this would be a large celebration where food and beverages, I suppose adult beverages, as Rush Limbaugh would say, would be served, what have you, so it would be a celebratory time. People would come in and they would vote, and they would vote with, back then of course all there was was paper ballots, and many times the paper ballots were color coordinated paper ballots. And so if you were voting for Steve King in that election, you might be voting with a blue ballot, and if you were voting for Scott Garrett, you might have the brown ballot. So it would be a way that actually going into the election booth there was no secrecy to it, because you would be getting your brown ballot from the Garrett campaign or the blue ballot from the King campaign, and you would be going in. And that would also indicate which party, literally, which party you came to, and then you would put it into the election box.

I don't know whether the gentleman from Utah knows those stories as well.

And on that point, how this ties in besides a history lesson, which I think is important as well, how it ties into one of your comments was one of the suggestions that has been made, and you touched upon it, was with regard to a paper ballot today would be either simply that you would have a single paper ballot that you would take with you when you leave, and that would be the only receipt. Or, I think you suggested both. In other words, a paper ballot would be made and printed that would go into a locked box, plus you would get a receipt to confirm how you voted. So there would be two.

The dilemma with either scenario, where you take a ballot out with you, goes back to what we are referencing right here. Now when you leave the poll, you have some document to prove how you just voted. Now, not to suggest that anyone in this day and age is paying people to vote, although we have heard such accusations, but of course without any documentation, someone can say, well, here is $25 to you if you will vote for my candidacy in the election. And of course the guy will take the $25 and come out of the election booth and say, ``Don't worry, I voted for you,'' and there is no proof that you did. If, however, there is a paper receipt, now you can come back and say, ``Well, here is the proof that I just voted for you or your candidate. Give me my $25.'' Or whatever the going rate may be in certain cities or elsewhere to confirm that I did. So I am not sure whether you have ever heard of that dilemma with that.

And the gentleman from Utah made a passing reference to the 17th amendment earlier on, and then I will yield back to the gentleman from Iowa. But just to illuminate on that point, originally the Founding Fathers of course intended that the other body, the Senate, would be elected not by direct vote but by the legislators of those States. And the idea behind that was probably to address the point that the gentleman from Utah just made; that the various States, such as Utah, which is probably ahead of the curve in just about every facet of running a government that we have seen so far, based on his testimony and previous evenings, the State of Utah prior to the passage of the 17th amendment would have elected their U.S. Senators through their State legislators. That Senator many times would have come from the Utah State Legislature prior to coming to Washington, would know what Utah was doing, and would have a personal stake or a local interest in maintaining the integrity and the sovereignty of that State. Likewise, from Iowa or New Jersey as well.

Obviously, the 17th amendment changed that, so now the U.S. Senators are now directly elected by the citizens of the respective States, and you break that bond between the sovereign issue that a legislature may have had. And you may have seen that reason on this issue coming from the bill from the other side of the aisle that we are talking about here, or some of the other issues that we have talked about on the floor as well as Congress begins to exceed its bounds and actually sees no bounds with regard to our control in every aspect of our lives.

Earlier today, just to digress for a moment, we voted on the flood insurance bill and we were going to expand into a wind map plan and for wind insurance as well. Basically, the Republican side of the aisle voted ``no'' on that bill, primarily because they said we would be exercising outside and pushing pressures on the economic forces that are already there providing that coverage. And really, the question is as I said at outset of my opening comments, and they often do when you put your card in here to vote is, does the Congress have that authority? Prior to the 17th amendment, a U.S. Senator would say, no, we have that authority in our own States to handle the regulation, whether it is insurance or otherwise, and want to confine ourselves to confine the Congress or the Senate to the areas that the Founding Fathers intended. Voting, of course, is a carefully construed area in the Constitution, and I will just close on this before I yield back to the gentleman.

Earlier, there was another issue, and I know the gentleman spoke quite a bit on this issue several months back. This House had another heated debate, if you will, when it came to a voting issue, and that was whether or not we would give voting rights to the citizens here of the District of Columbia, and I know the gentleman from Iowa also, I believe, came to the floor and spoke extensively on that topic.

And the answer to that issue, as much as the other side, just as on this issue, just as the other side would like to stand up on this issue and say, well, we have the infinite detail and plan to the finite level to the Nth degree on how to do this issue that we have before us today as far as every little nook and cranny has to be covered on voting. They said the same thing when it came to the D.C. voting rights as well. We know what is best and how to implement that program and voting rights for the District of Columbia,

And well, may they should or may they did; what they didn't seem to do with that one, nor apparently did they do in this case as well is look, as you and I would suggest they probably should have, and I think you discussed it at the time, to a copy of the U.S. Constitution. And had they done so, they would have realized on that issue, I'm not going to redebate that issue, but had they done so, they would have realized that the Constitution specifically addressed the issue of the District of Columbia and how it should be set up and how the control of the District would be. The Constitution also defined who is a citizen in terms of voting and who is a representative and that he would come from a State. And of course this is not a State. So all you really have to do on many of these cases is look to the terms of the Constitution, and they begin to answer some of these questions.

But I have a question for the gentleman from Iowa, again just to look at some of the finer points to it. You raised the issue of actually having a piece of paper, a trail, if you will, and you raised the question whether or not we can trust the electronic aspect of the machines and what have you. Just to be the proverbial Devil's advocate with you, some people would suggest that, well, for our entire financial system in this country nowadays, we look to electronic transfers and what have you and we rely on that nowadays, as opposed to paper ballots or paper documentations.

And likewise, there is another suggestion in this area, whether it comes from Congress or it comes from the States, as opposed to a paper ballot, but an electronic receipt, if you will. And I'll just give you one of these and then I will close.

One of the suggestions for an electronic receipt would be not a written message that I just voted for a Steve King, but an electronic voice activation message that I just voted for Steve King. So instead of going into the ballot booth, and I don't know whether the gentleman's ever heard of this proposal before, and pushing the button and clicking down on a piece of paper, electronically it would record and you would hear, vote for Steve King for U.S. Senate.

Would you see any of those as alternatives to this as we move into the electronic age to be an equal or sufficient record?

I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa and your comments as well. And at this point I would like to yield sufficient time as she will consume to Ms. Foxx.

And I thank the gentlelady. And as our time comes to a close here shortly, I'd just like to say I appreciate her comments and also to say she hits on the point directly as far as the role and appropriate breadth and scope of the Congress, the Senate, and the Federal Government. You know, the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 1, the very beginning of the Constitution sets forth the parameters, if you will, of the role and responsibilities of the Federal Government. They are then, that point is reinforced in a couple of different ways, actually, when you think about it, both there and at the end. There it's reinforced in the section in as much as article I, section 8 sets out specifically what are the appropriate roles, and it delineates what the appropriate roles are for the Federal Government.

And an interesting thing there, and I don't want to go into too much detail on the verbiage of the Constitution here tonight as it's getting late, but many people often look to critics on the other side on this point, and on article I, section 8 say, well, in there is

what is called the general welfare clause, and for that reason, Congress has the right and ability to move on and act on any sort of issue that they want to.

But a closer study of the Constitution points out that the article I section 8 general welfare clause comes before the delineation of the specific points and authority granted to the Federal Government. That is at the beginning of the Constitution. At the very end of the Constitution, at least back in 1787 and a couple years after that with the adoption of the first ten amendments, which eventually we call the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment, of course, is the one germane to this discussion and all of our discussions on the floor with regard to the Constitution and the role of Congress, and that is that it says all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States and the people respectively, which those two points tied together reinforces the gentlewoman's comment that we have to be careful as far as the role of the Federal Government in these areas.

So it is appropriate that when we look to the bill that comes from the other side of the aisle on this issue of voting, which is so expansive in scope as far as its authority that it is trying to impose and so restrictive at the same time as far as what they are allowing the States to do, it is appropriate for us to come and discuss that issue and debate that issue to find out if there is not a better way. And that's why I very much appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's being with us tonight.

I see the gentleman from Iowa is back with us again, and I yield to him.

In as much as the gentleman is raising the question, I have anticipation that he has specific examples in mind that he is going to cite. But I believe there have been specific examples when electors have decided to go their own way and not be bound by their electorate.

Reclaiming my time, I agree with that and I appreciate that.

And I think that the seminal answer to your question of what was in the minds, if you will, of the Founding Fathers when they created the Electoral College was if they wanted the electors to have freedom to make that decision so it was their own wisdom that would be decided on the day of the casting of the ballot, which is what I believe that the Founders intended. Their alternative would have been to say, no, that you are bound by however you were elected. Well, if you were going to be bound by however you were elected, then in reality there's no need to actually have a person there to make that decision to cast the ballot. The Constitution would have been worded completely differently to say that, in effect, it was not an automaton but an automatic collection of all the votes. The majority of votes would not go to a specific elector, Steve King, but the majority of the votes would then therefore go to that candidate, whoever those electors are specifically delegated to vote for, whom they were representing. In other words, you would not need to elect a delegate, an elector, if he was going to be bound without any discretion.

I think the Founding Fathers realized that still within the confines of the limited amount of times that the electors, within the terminology of the Constitution, had to actually vote following the popular vote, there was still that flexibility that they could consider whatever changing moment the times may have necessitated them to do.

And of course, also, the other aspect of that that you didn't get into is the election of the Vice President and how the electorals play in that as well.

And you're absolutely right. You think about John Quincy Adams, who was first in Congress and then President, and then went back to sitting in Congress once again after he served as President. I think he was the only one that ever did that, and I cannot imagine any President today leaving the White House.

He is. And I guess we should close on that quote. And again, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's coming.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor this evening.