Floor Statements

I would definitely define it as an earmark. And I rise now to ask either one of the gentlemen to elaborate on the comment the gentleman from Iowa is making, and as the gentleman also raised, that this has already pressed accounts as to where this exemption is drafted for. But as the gentleman from Iowa said, there was no explanation as to why it came about. That is to say, the press accounts from the Speaker's office, I believe the gentleman from Iowa said that they have not been lobbied at all by the industry from their district. Is that correct? They were not lobbied at all by that particular industry from their district is what the press accounts say from the Speaker's office on this issue?

I believe I am quoting you correctly that the press accounts from the Speaker's office on this is they have not been lobbied whatsoever from the respective industry in their State on this topic. And if that is the case, and it is hard to believe for the reason the gentleman from Iowa states that something that is so fundamentally important to that particular industry, you would think that the Speaker, if she is going to be responsive to their industry, would be hearing from them on these matters.

My question is, and perhaps you know the answer, why then does either the chairman or the Speaker say that they put this provision into the particular bill if not to protect those industries?

I appreciate that the gentleman is trying to conjecture what the potential answer is as to why this absurd language was put in the original bill. Neither one of them obviously stands on their own foot. The first one being that we are going to create such an exemption because we realize how dangerous imposing minimum wage on any particular industry can be. Well, if it is going to be dangerous for that particular industry, then the other side of the aisle should realize it can be harmful to others and they should broaden the exemption to others. That was the first explanation.

The second explanation you conjectured was because they were doing it as an earmark specifically for one industry, to protect that industry. And in this area of ethics, I am sure that could not be the reason.

So as we stand on the floor tonight, I am sure that while we are here to speak on this matter, the Members on the other side of the aisle are back at their offices listening to this debate, the Speaker is probably back in her office right now, the sponsor of the bill is back in their office right now.

I would extend an invitation to any or all of them to come and join us to give us a logical explanation. Was it the first reason that they were just creating one exemption because they realized how harmful minimum wage can be, or was it that they were crafting something specifically as an earmark to protect one of their own industries outside of all others?

Will the gentleman from Iowa yield?

I just wish to take this moment to commend you, Mr. McHenry, on this issue because just as the other side of the aisle has said that they want to have input from the other side of the aisle, and as you know, we have been precluded from giving that input in the form of amendments on this and just about every other bill that has come before us, I commend you for taking the time now to open up the floor to the other side of the aisle and give to them what they will not give to us. You were giving to them the opportunity to give input to our side of the aisle.

And when I say, our side of the aisle, this is not just a partisan issue. This is

not just something just for us here in this room or Republicans or what have you. We are really extending a hand to the other side. We are offering them to give input to the American public to explain themselves. Was it an issue of them trying to carve out something for one particular industry in their home State, or was this something even less nefarious than that, simply that they realized that raising the minimum wage can have the harmful impacts that it does?

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I would like to just step back for just a moment from this overall issue that we are narrowly focussing on, this exemption, perhaps nefarious, that was in the legislation, and commend the gentleman from Iowa for your comments just yesterday when the overall bill of minimum wage was being discussed and you waxed eloquent as to the problems that the legislation that the other side of the aisle presented as far as what a raise in the minimum wage can do to the people that they suggest that they are going to help. And I commend the gentleman for the comments that you make on that.

And if I could just maybe elaborate and give one other example. Perhaps the most difficult part of understanding from whence they come on this issue of raising the minimum wage in the manner that they did is that they, in fact, hurt the very same people that they claim they are going to try to help by raising the minimum wage. That is, they are going to hurt the very people who are low skilled and lack experience because, generally speaking, it is the low skilled and the people lacking experience who are entering into the entry level type jobs out there. And it does a disservice to them for them to report a bill such as we had yesterday of raising the minimum wage, which we know statistically will shut out so many people who are seeking to enter the workforce.

Just as we did a moment ago where we asked others to take a look at this issue that we were speaking about a moment ago and come down here to explain themselves, perhaps, if they are not going to come down here, the constituents at home can call the Members and ask, can they explain themselves on the exemption of the bill? But also maybe people listening to this program at home right now can also call the Members on the other side of the aisle who purported to support this raise in the minimum wage and ask this: Have any of them on the other side of the aisle ever while a Member of Congress had people working for them right down here on Capitol Hill, working for them in a legislative capacity basically, alongside other members of their staff, and not paid them the full minimum wage? That would be a curious question.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Sure. I appreciate that. Have any of them had anyone working on their staffs and not paid the full current minimum wage? That is an interesting question. I bet the answer to that question would be yes. And we know those people in those offices are entry level people, many of them in college right now, who come to Washington to try to get their first job.

Now, the Members on the other side of the aisle will say, wait a minute, the reason we are not paying them the full minimum wage right now and we have done so for the last several years despite the Federal minimum wage is because these are entry level people. They are young people. They don't have a full education yet. They don't have all the experience they need as other people on the staff. And yet the people sitting right next to them on the staff are being paid the minimum wage, and you have to ask them, why are they doing that? The other reason they would give to you, and they do it in perhaps a dismissive sort of way, is to say these people whom we are not paying minimum wage to are interns.

Wait a minute now. This young person sitting over here doing the exact same thing as this person sitting over here, the exact same sort of job; this person is being paid a full salary, and this one is not getting a full minimum wage salary doing the exact same thing. Is it right that they do not meet that level? And yet they were the ones who sponsored this legislation to raise the overall standard of pay for everyone else in this country. So I think it is important that we ask them why, on the one hand, they speak out of the mouth of raising the standards for everyone, but at the same time, in their own offices, they have people working for them who are not making the full minimum wage.

I would say no. I would say we are a responsive office, as is your office, to the constituents' needs in our district. So, no. That is why the statement released by the Speaker on this is difficult to comprehend.

Mr. Speaker, one other point that the gentleman from Iowa did not raise but I think would concur with is what is the underpinning of this Nation. The other side of the aisle would probably agree with this if we were speaking on another topic, that led to the great formation of the wealth and the value of this Nation, from our moral upbringing as well as the development of this Nation, is in fact the diversity of this Nation. The fact that living in New England is different demographically than living in the far west. That living in New Jersey where I come from is different from where the gentleman from Iowa lives. Whether we are talking about the weather or the price of housing or the energy costs that we may have in New England and New Jersey as far as heating versus the energy costs in the southern portions of the country, and the transportation costs, and the educational level.

New Jersey is proud of the fact that we are a highly educated State, and for that reason we have a number of biotech firms and pharmaceutical firms in our area. Other portions of the country may have more farming. Or in the New York area where it is the financial services mecca for this country. Or western portions where it is high tech on the West Coast. That is where we are today, but that is also where we came from. We were a diverse Nation. It was because of that diversity and the freedoms and liberties that we had at that time that this Nation was able to grow economically, as the gentleman said.

The problem with the legislation that we passed yesterday, however, it does not realize nor appreciate nor value that diversity of this Nation that we have. What that legislation says is that we are going to treat everyone alike uniformly. When you do that, you treat certain people unfairly.

How does that come about? In the examples I gave yesterday, you can come up with a list of these things. If you treat an individual who is a teenager who is in school right now and trying to get a job after school and make some money, maybe he wants to work in the fields bringing in hay in the Midwest, we are going to treat him the same as we might treat the parent of some children who has some experience in the tech field and has an entry-level position in the Northeast where they have high-tech industry. We are going to treat that person the same as perhaps a second-career individual, perhaps in the financial service markets just over the river, the Hudson River in New York City.

Perhaps we are going to treat them the same as someone in Florida in the citrus crop industry. So whether it is the fields of Iowa or Florida, the high-tech industries on the west coast or the financial industry on the east coast, the legislation we had yesterday setting a uniform minimum wage says they are all going to be treated exactly the right, regardless of the person's age, experience, regardless of the person's skills, regardless of their attributes that they bring to that employer who is looking for somebody to add to the value of the product that they are producing, and regardless of the demography of the particular area, traveling costs, housing costs, or the cost of living.

Coming down to Washington, D.C., we realize this is an extremely expensive place to live versus other places in the country where you can buy a house for maybe $100,000. Regardless of all those variables, they are going to mandate and say we are going to treat everybody in all of these situations the same. That is unfair because the demographics and the situations differ.

The result is this: those individual in these other high-cost areas are going to be put at a greater disadvantage in certain circumstances. In other circumstances, that individual in Iowa trying to get a job after school, they are going to be put at a disadvantage because the employer is not going to see the value added to the product exactly the same. And so some of those individuals who may need those jobs will not be able to get the jobs that they actually have to have to support their family.

First of all, I commend the gentleman for coming to the floor to raise this important issue.

As we conclude this hour worth of discussion and debate on this very important topic, I would just remind the gentleman that it has been an hour that we have been debating and discussing this issue. We have extended our hand to the other side of the aisle. We have extended our hand to the Speaker and to the sponsor of the legislation to come forward and to engage with us here on the floor and with the American public, as well, to explain whether there is a nefarious reason behind this inexplicable reason for treating certain people in the country different than other people in the country.

We will welcome an opportunity in future times for them to join us to explain themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this harmful legislation and to oppose the Democrats' plan to interfere with and interject themselves in individuals' personal decisions as to where they are going to work.

I also stand here, actually, in awe of the omniscient view the other side of the aisle has of themselves, this all-knowing, all-seeing view that they know better than families do as to where they are going to work and micromanage their lives. Regardless of whether it is a kid in Iowa after school working on a farm throwing hay or it is a woman in Chicago working at a high-tech plant on an assembly line or it is a man in New York going back as a second career trying to get a job in the finance industry, the other side of the aisle would tell us that each one of those individuals should be paid exactly the same, regardless of their age, regardless of the work, regardless of their experience, regardless of demographics, and regardless of the cost of living in those areas. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, this body, which has been unable to get its finances and house in order for the last 40 years, is in no position to be telling the American public and the families of this country how they should be getting their finances in order.

This is an unfair bill, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly pleased that the first priority of this legislation is to continue the efforts of the 109th Congress to fundamentally change the way in which Homeland Security grants are dispersed. By current formulae, only 60 percent of grants are assigned on the basis of risk, meaning that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars that should be protecting our most vulnerable citizens and infrastructure on political priorities.

Restructuring this grant program to better protect the regions at highest risk of terrorist threat has been amongst my highest priorities since coming to Congress. North Jersey, which I represent, lost many residents and family members in the 9/11 attacks and, in fact, sent many of its own first responders over the Hudson River to respond to those attacks. While those same brave New Jersey first responders have struggled to purchase the communications and safety equipment that are necessary to deal with any future attacks, operating with outdated air packs and obsolete radio equipment, other areas of the country with less risk of terrorist attack have had the luxury of using these funds for far less necessary purchases.

Three times the 109th Congress passed legislation to fix this gross oversight. I hope that the current leadership will stand strong and insist that their colleagues in the Senate take the appropriate steps to better prioritize our limited funds and make our people safer.

I am further concerned that this large and expensive bill has come to floor outside of any normal procedure. There are a number of new programs, panels, reports, and procedures contained in the bill that have never come before the Committee on Homeland Security. Some of these programs may be effective in enhancing our security, but without expert testimony or any comment from the department officials who will carry out these directives, we can have no confidence in their value.

In fact, there is no real way to even determine what all these provisions will cost since the bill fails to appropriate or authorize specific sums. Given the claims of our new leadership that they are retaking the mantle of fiscal responsibility, it is disturbing to see that their first piece of legislation, H.R. 1, comes to the floor without any plan for how much is to be spent and where all this new funding is supposed to come from.

Security for the American people should be our number one priority, but we absolve ourselves of our responsibility as legislators by writing a blank check. I hope that in the coming months we can work together to bring real solutions to the House floor and work with the Senate to send strong legislation to the President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution calling for a month to remember the significant achievements and contributions that Irish-Americans have made to our Nation.

Throughout our more than 200 years of history as a Nation and during our colonial period, countless immigrants from the Emerald

Isle have arrived on our shores. Irish-Americans have been instrumental in building up our strong, free, and prosperous Nation at every turn in our Nation's rich history. Despite initial discrimination, Irish- Americans used the freedom and opportunity of the United States to build strong communities and businesses and prove themselves great Americans.

Though many Irish came to American shores with little but the clothes on their backs, their hard work and integrity made them great American leaders. While we are all aware of President Kennedy's pride in his Irish heritage, 18 other presidents are of Irish descent including Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and Ronald Reagan.

There is a great legacy of Irish-American service in our military with many recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor claiming Irish heritage or birth. Irish immigrants have contributed significantly in our Armed Services as well, ensuring full freedom for all Americans.

While many Americans remember their Irish heritage on St. Patrick's Day, because of the great contribution of Irish-Americans to our Nation, it is fitting that we dedicate an entire month of ceremonies and celebrations to their achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Healthcare Act. And, I would also like to thank Chairman Thomas for all of his hard work both on this bill and throughout his tenure in Congress and as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that this bill makes an important fix to a very urgent Medicare problem that if left unaddressed could have caused many hospitals--including 7 in New Jersey--to possibly have to close their doors to those who require that care. By providing an extension to changes to the hospital wage index classification system, these hospitals will be able to continue to receive higher Medicare reimbursement rates and thus avoid real financial jeopardy. Both this provision and the provision to eliminate the cut of up to 5 percent in payments to health care providers solve critical healthcare problems that cannot be put off any longer.

I am also pleased that a number of very important tax relief extensions were included such as the Research and Development Tax Credit and state and local sales tax deductions. I only wish that instead of extending these; we would make them permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I am, however, disappointed to see a number of miscellaneous provisions included in the bill that Congress has not had ample time to debate and that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. The most egregious of these provisions is the provision regarding the Abandoned Mine Land Fund. The bill reduces some AML fees and converts the program from discretionary to mandatory spending. This will increase the deficit by $3.9 billion over the next 10 years. At a time when Congress should be looking for ways to reduce out-of-control mandatory spending, I do not believe this is prudent.

Mr. Speaker, even though I do not support every provision in this bill, the Medicare fixes and tax relief extensions are critical in nature and will benefit millions of Americans and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in my time in Congress, I have had the opportunity to visit our South Asian ally, Sri Lanka. This small island nation has directly suffered both the devastating effects of the 2004 tsunami and the continuing threat of homegrown terrorism, which has experienced a recent resurgence.

Many years before the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Sri Lanka was confronting the grim specter of suicide terrorism. In fact, many of the suicide tactics utilized by terrorists in the Middle East originated with the Tamils. Because of this and because of their ties with other international terrorist groups, the Tamils pose a threat to Americans around the globe as well.

Despite the fact that a cease-fire remains in effect, over the past year, the Liberation Tigers of Tam Eelam (LITTE) have continued to commit acts of violence against the legitimate Government of Sri Lanka. The recent spate of violence began in August of last year with the assassination of Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar. In a further attempt to damage the democratic process, the LITTE prevented the Tamil population in the Wanni region from voting in the Presidential election last November. Since the Inauguration of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the LTTE has stepped up attacks on unarmed civilians including the use of fragmentation bombs against a bus killing 64 and injuring 80. Additionally, they have carried out assassinations of the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army and the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army and attacked a convoy of off-duty sailors, killing 94 and injuring many more. In all of these cases, the attacks were carried out by suicide bombers.

The LTTE has cultivated a worldwide network of weapons suppliers. Here in the United States, the FBI was able to apprehend Tamil agents who attempted to purchase surface-to-air missiles in New York and Maryland. Tamil agents have been arrested here for attempting to bribe customs agents and funnel illicit funds through charities. While the Tamils continue their attempts to operate in the United States, Federal authorities are vigorously investigating and prosecuting those who are recruiting support for terrorism in Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan Government gives every indication that it is committed to a peaceful settlement to this conflict within their nation's borders. Even after an attempt on the life of Defense Secretary Rajapakse, the President's brother, the government refuses to institute an outright ban on the Tamil Tigers. Norwegian peace negotiators, who had presided over the current cease-fire agreements, continue their efforts to bring the LTTE to the peace table but, unfortunately, Tiger leader Prabhakaran has called for a full resumption of hostilities. The government is ready to except the Tigers as a peaceful political party but not as a purveyor of violence.

Sri Lanka is a beautiful nation filled with hopeful people who wish to live in peace, and I am hopeful that they will soon see a resolution to these dangerous difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in favor of Mr. Souder's commonsense legislation. As defense spending takes up a great percentage of Federal spending each year and is perhaps the most complex spending issue we confront in Congress, it is past time for us to have a clear tool to determine the effectiveness of the billions of dollars we spend each year.

One of the difficulties in accounting for Defense spending is just trying to figure out the total amount of funds spent. Representative Souder's legislation will require the Department of Defense to provide to us a clear number of how much is spent each year.

Earlier this year, in my position as a member of the Budget Committee, I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld decrying the poor condition of financial management at the Department. When this administration took office, DOD announced it was adding $100 million to the budget as a down payment on improved financial management; and yet, Deputy Secretary of Defense England testified before the committee that the department was unable to complete a proper financial statement. Additionally, the GAO has reported that the Department has failed on being able to track the spending we have provided in supplemental appropriations despite the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, mandating that departments must be able to perform this kind of recordkeeping.

As Congress will likely consider another supplemental package of possibly more than $100 billion early next year, it is critical that we, as legislators, have the tools to determine whether this money is being well-spent. Funds allocated to the Department of Defense are directly responsible for the safety of our soldiers who are risking their lives defending our freedom. We have a duty to ensure that this spending is free of waste, fraud, and abuse.

I congratulate the gentleman on a well-constructed and critical bill and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to join with my colleague, Mr. Stearns, to bring this resolution to the floor today. Dr. Milton Friedman is surely a man that is worthy of the honor of this House.

You know, it took courage, it took honor, and it really took genius for Dr. Friedman to challenge the prevailing thought and economic theories of his day. His meticulous economic analysis presented in his books and his lectures and his talks convinced leaders here in the United States, and around the world as well, that inflation could be controlled and it could be controlled through careful control of money supply. That is a theory that has been proven true by the policies of our past Fed chairmen over the last several decades.

Dr. Friedman was known for his ability to defend his theories, to defend the free market ideas with both clarity and grace as well. He is considered a friend of all the economists of the day, Keynesians and socialist economists as well, but he used their critiques to sharpen his own theories. He was on TV for a while in a television series, Free to Choose, and Dr. Friedman introduced his free market concepts to a truly popular audience. He proved himself unafraid to defend himself in the marketplace of general ideas as each segment of this, what was a 10-segment-part program, contained a vigorous debate among politicians of the day, economists and historians as well.

See, Milton Friedman stood, first and foremost, for freedom. He had an earnest belief that a free society is truly a strong society.

So now, fast forward to today. Now, at a time when our freedoms in this country and around the world are under attack, we must defend ourselves from those who would enslave mankind, and we should do so by remembering Dr. Friedman and his intellectual defense of liberty. Remember his long and vibrant life. And we also give our lifelong condolences to his family that he has left behind. He was truly an intellectual giant, and we will all miss him for his abilities and contributions to this world, to this country, and the freedoms that we enjoy today.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight just to be brief on two points: first to thank the chairman for his outstanding leadership in the Financial Services Committee over the years in general and specifically tonight with regard to your work on regulatory relief; and also to the gentleman from Texas who just spoke for all of his work to bring this to fruition as we have tonight.

The underlying bill here goes, as has been pointed out, to reduce the overall burden on financial institutions in general and make some technical corrections that need to be made. One of the points I want to touch upon is how it impacts on the Federal Debt Collectors Practices Act. In the underlying bill, there were two provisions that I had back in the 108th Congress that I am pleased have been included in the legislation here today.

The first of these provisions clarifies that a formal pleading in any civil action will not be considered communications now as defined by the FDCPA, and the second provision now clarifies the right of a collector to pursue an account during the first 30 days, so long as the debt collector's pursuits do not overshadow or otherwise confuse the consumer debtors.

By doing these two things, what we are doing is removing ambiguities in the FDCPA, and that increases compliance with the act and improves protections and overall helps consumers.

Additionally, the debt collection industry will be helped as well. It does that by improving guidance to them as an industry so that they can better conform to business practices to the letter of the law, additionally by curbing waste and time and money in the system, and finally, by avoiding litigation, all in the end good to the consumer, good to the industry, good for the American public.

I thank the gentleman from Texas and the chairman as well for getting it all done.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6079) to require the President's Working Group on Financial Markets to conduct a study on the hedge fund industry, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would first like to wish my friend and colleague and the chief sponsor of this legislation, Congressman Mike Castle, a very speedy recovery. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family, and we hope to see him back here on the floor soon.

I also, Madam Speaker, wish to take this time to thank both Chairman

Oxley and Chairman Baker for their support of this study and the ongoing efforts to address the evolving hedge fund industry.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to support H.R. 6079, the Hedge Fund Study Act, introduced by my colleague, Mike Castle. This legislation will better enable this House to examine the role of hedge funds in our economy through a thoughtful study and report by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the PWG.

The hedge fund industry represents a vital sector of the American economy, as evidenced by its market growth and capital development. Hedge funds are now a $1.2 trillion industry; and they can be a high- risk, high-stake investment. While they are usually targeted to wealthy investors, hedge funds are increasingly tied to pension plans and, consequently, to the financial earnings of millions of middle-class Americans. For that reason, I think it is necessary that we further explore hedge funds and the potential impact and benefits that they offer to the financial markets and investors as well.

Specifically, H.R. 6079 will help Congress learn more about this vibrant industry. The study will examine hedge fund growth and the potential risks as well as the benefits of the hedge fund industry to the economy and the markets.

The hedge fund industry has such a significant impact on the markets and was last reviewed by the PWG study on this topic way back in 1999. But the growth of the hedge fund industry over the past 7 years makes this legislation timely. I would call your attention to the improvements of the hedge fund industry risk management function, improvements that were recommended in that study in 1999.

Counterparties and financial institutions have taken affirmative steps over the past 6 years now to mitigate exposures to risk through innovative financial products and the allocation of greater resources toward a dedicated risk management role.

Additionally, the hedge fund industry has in the past demonstrated its willingness on its own to resolve market challenges. For example, through a self-imposed obligation, derivative market participants, including hedge funds, directed their efforts toward eliminating a credit derivatives paperwork backlog that in past years was caused by explosive growth within those markets. The industry has now successfully reported that it has made substantial progress in increasing operational efficiencies and operational risks.

Again, at this time, I support this legislation; and I also should point out that I would like to thank Congressman Chris Shays from Connecticut for his expertise in this area, as many of the hedge funds that we speak of here tonight are near in his district. I compliment the Congressman and his efforts to getting this bill through this House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just point out with regard to that court case, an interesting thing with regard to that court case was the fact that the court, in part, reached a decision as it did because it said, I am not quoting it, but, in essence, that they could not define exactly what a hedge fund was.

So perhaps with the benefit of this study that we can be able to rein that in and to address that issue as well.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. I would like to make one final point on this. I mentioned during my earlier remarks the improvements that the industry has made on its own in this year.

And I should also point out, I think Mr. Castle would appreciate the fact, that the Managed Funds Association, which is the funds of the association of the hedge funds, in essence, are in support of this legislation as well. They have indicated the hedge funds are currently subject to numerous regulations already relating to advertising and broad reporting requirements, ERISA and other securities. But they do as well see the benefit to look at both sides of the equation from a balanced approach, both the risk and the potential difficulties as well.

So I just wanted to add that to the Record as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, on July 12 of this year, Hezbollah guerillas killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another two, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. All the while Hezbollah continued to launch rockets at civilian targets in northern Israel. These actions against Israel's sovereignty sparked Israel's defensive measures and the subsequent escalation of the conflict. In the end, as a direct consequence of Hezbollah's belligerence, more than 1,000 Lebanese and Israeli civilians lay dead and the infrastructure of Lebanon lay in ruins.

When the cease-fire was brokered by the United Nations, it was the understanding of all parties, especially Israel, that the U.N. would work toward the release of Israel's kidnapped soldiers. Today, however, more than 2 months later, those two brave young men remain in captivity and their families remain uncertain of their future.

Furthermore, Hezbollah remains armed with as many as 20,000 rockets aimed at Israel, according to this group's own claims. Just this past Friday, Mr. Speaker, Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, threw a victory rally in Lebanon, taunting Israel, the peace-seeking government of Lebanon, and the United Nations as well with the probability that no one will ever see these two soldiers alive again. In fact, not only did Nasrallah note that these soldiers would only be returned in exchange for some of its jailed terrorist foot soldiers; he also vowed that neither the U.N. nor the Lebanese troops would ever be allowed to disarm Hezbollah guerilla troops in southern Israel and threatened the Western-friendly Lebanese Government of the Prime Minister.

There can be no doubt that Nasrallah and Hezbollah have become bolder, more dangerous, and graver threats to the peace in the Middle East.

And yet Israel has honorably abided by the terms of the cease-fire as a sign of good faith and its commitment of peace in the region. It leaves one to wonder at the effectiveness of the U.N. to rectify this still unresolved injustice. This situation brings to light yet another example of the dramatic shortcomings of the U.N. in its ability to carry out the good that it was originally planned for and created.

In fact, at the very time that the United Nations was seeking to implement this cease-fire in Lebanon, it was entertaining the Iranian Prime Minister, who surprised no one with his tirade against the U.N. General Assembly, alternating between anti-American vitriol and ad hominem attacks against Israel as well.

Of course, if the United Nations is going to be an effective broker for peace and a conduit for diplomacy, it must itself be above reproach. The United Nations' track record, however, with regard to Israel specifically is unbalanced at best and anti-Semitic at worst. In just a single session of the U.N. General Assembly, it passed 21 individual resolutions criticizing Israel. And over its 30-year period of time, the U.N. has actually funded three organizations that disseminate anti-Israeli propaganda. Furthermore, only Israel has been called upon to defend itself as an individual agenda item before the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

Even on a more general level, as I have discussed here before, it is little wonder that the U.N. has lacked the credibility to broker international agreements, let alone enforce them.

With its current track record of internal corruption and its roster of greedy little machine bosses that it has, the U.N. is hardly able to claim the moral high ground necessary to occupy this position.

Consider, for example, the Oil-for-Food scandal that facilitated as much as $17 billion in grants, scams, and smuggling, keeping Saddam Hussein living in the lap of luxury while the people of his country, Iraq, starved, and also paying for the rewards for the families of suicide bombers as well. Even now that the first conviction of a central figure to that scandal has been served and dates have been set for the trials of several other co-conspirators, the U.N. continues to protect some of the most egregious offenders.

It has been long enough, Mr. Speaker, and I urge the United Nations to do what is right for once, to defend the sovereignty of the State of Israel and take the necessary measures to ensure the soldiers' immediate and safe return to their families and to give evidence of its credibility as a true broker of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 15th anniversary of the independence of Armenia. On this day in 1991, Armenia was finally given the opportunity for self-rule for the first time in centuries. After suffering under harsh rule of the Turks, who attempted to slaughter them, and then the Soviets, who imprisoned them and persecuted them for their Christian beliefs, Armenia is now heading for a bright future filled with liberty and economic growth.

After decades of stagnation under the failed communist economic system, Armenia now ranks as the 27th most economically free nation in the world. A member of the World Trade Organization, Armenia is working through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to grow its economy. I have strong faith that Armenia will continue to grow despite the harsh embargoes of its neighbors in Georgia and Turkey.

Armenia is justifiably proud of its deep cultural roots that go back to the dawn of recorded civilization. Ninety-nine percent of Armenians are literate and they have preserved both a distinct language and alphabet. Located in the shadow of the famed Mt. Ararat,

Armenia's growing tourist industry prides itself on the nation's fascinating history.

Armenian-Americans are contributing to the development of their homeland by investing and promoting the nation on the international stage. Today is a great day for them and their homeland. I congratulate Armenia on 15 years of freedom and progress and trust that our nations will grow even closer in the future as we seek to promote liberty around the world.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor those brave American and Filipino soldiers who fought side by side during the Pacific battles of World War II. Their heroic actions and courageous fortitude gave the Allied Forces the edge that they needed to emerge victorious in that great war.

American veterans like Donald Patafio of Woodcliff Lakes and Raymond DiPietro of Demarest. Patafio and DiPietro served in the Navy alongside these brave Filipino soldiers in the battle for their homeland. Patafio served honorably as an aviation radioman and DiPietro's unit received a Presidential Citation for their work in the battle.

More than 120,000 Filipino nationals were formed into U.S. divisions for the defense of their homeland and to advance the Allied forces' cause of liberty. Though poorly equipped, they fought valiantly under the American flag and under the direction of American military leaders in the weeks following the invasion of their homeland. Many continued the battle against the Japanese during the years of occupation.

Thousands of American and Filipino troops died during the infamous hundred-mile Bataan Death March. Many were executed along the way for merely asking for water in the scorching sun. While 70,000 forces surrendered, only 54,000 reached the internment camp. The Geneva Convention was no barrier to the mistreatment, torture, and indiscriminate execution inflicted upon these prisoners of war.

Civilian Filipinos suffered for their alliance with our American troops as well. In Manila, for instance, Japanese troops--in an indefensible position and cut off from supplies--took their anger out on an undefended civilian population, massacring more than 100,000.

We are grateful for the service of all the Filipino people--civilian, guerilla, and regular army--in the defense of democracy. And, we are thankful for their continued friendship. To this day, the Filipino people continue to welcome American soldiers, sailors, and airmen to bases that were instrumental in the Cold War and are now important in the War on Terror. As they did in World War II, fighting along side of brave American soldiers like Donald Patafio and Raymond DiPietro, the people of the Philippines continue to work with American forces to spread the cause of liberty.

Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor tonight for our weekly Congressional Constitution Caucus Constitution Hour to honor the annual Constitution Day, September 17. September 17 marks the anniversary of the signing of our founding legal document, the U.S. Constitution.

On September 17, 1787, 39 revolutionary and visionary Founding Fathers changed the course of history and this country and the world, securing liberties and freedoms that centuries of civilization had only dreamed of before and that democracies around the world have tried to emulate ever since. I encourage all of my colleagues to use this occasion to remind us all and all Americans of the true intent of the U.S. Constitution and all the rights and the liberties that are guaranteed to them when our government was first formed. Today more than ever before these freedoms are too often encroached upon by every branch of government.

Unfortunately, for most Americans, the Constitution is nothing more than a historical document, really, too often cited, and cited inaccurately, and nearly always greatly misunderstood.

Still more unfortunate, this esteemed body and our Federal Government have lowered the standard of constitutional understanding and adherence, and so it is no wonder the general public has little interest or comprehension of the intent of our Nation's Founding Fathers. Just today, for example, if someone tuned in to see the discussion on C-SPAN of what was going on on the floor, the House was debating, as if, you might say, a school board was debating, for we were looking at legislation of how schools should be run with regard to their securities within their confines.

Thomas Jefferson was once asked the question, why is it that the Federal Government does not regulate and promote schools throughout the country? And he answered the question by saying: Madam, we shall do so when the Constitution is amended to say that we have the right and constitutional power to do so. But until that time, we shall not.

Here in the House floor today, unfortunately, we were doing just that, acting as if this was one large super-school board for the entire 50 States of this country.

But we were happy to come to the floor, along with my colleague from Utah, earlier this evening and other members of the caucus to help reorient the conversation to the original beliefs of our Founding Fathers and purposes of our founding documents. I think we have become a society that has begun to take for granted our systems of self- government and our liberties and freedoms. You know, gone are the days of the tyrannical rulers that inspired patriots to dump tea in the Boston Harbor or to compel Patrick Henry to cry out, ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' or motivated such important luminaries as General George Washington, who successfully led a patchwork of army of little resources and even less hope to take up arms against one of the mightiest armies in the world for their freedom.

As societies around the world are currently struggling to establish or maintain democracy as the true model of self-government, let us not forget the many rights that we possess and the single document that protects them.

So as we celebrate the anniversary of our signing of our Nation's most significant legal document, let us each and every one of us try to better familiarize ourselves with it. Highlighting and understanding what the Constitution actually says; what the intent of the authors actually was, and how it is now interpreted, stretched, or ignored will empower the public, like our forefathers once did, to stand up for their innate rights and to resist the growth of government at every level.

You see, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to let our rights slip away, but tremendously difficult to get them back ever again. The best weapons that we have against either of those things ever happening is to arm ourselves with the knowledge found in the United States Constitution.

And so I conclude as I had once before on this floor, to encourage this House to adopt legislation that is pending right now called the AMERICA Act, which is simply asking every Member of this body to on a yearly basis to simply read the Constitution, and their staffs as well. Let us start in this body to have an understanding of the Constitution and to share that belief with the American public as well

Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to open up our books to the American people so that everyone in the public can be fully apprised as to how their hard-earned dollars are spent by the Federal Government. I rise in support of this bill for reform.

Accountability is not something that should be or could be postponed. It should be instinctive in all of our work as stewards of the American taxpayer. It should be reflective, but sadly it is not.

I am encouraged that we are taking up this bill. I believe it is an important first step forward in accountability. The reforms we consider today in essence broaden the efforts of our earlier reforms and lobbying reform package of legislation that we passed earlier. It goes now to appropriations, authorization, and tax bills.

We must stop the process of loading up authorization bills with pork the way we loaded up appropriations bills. That infamous Bridge to Nowhere, that was an appropriations bill. It was an earmark in a bill authorizing Federal spending giving the congressional imprimatur to the project.

We must police Federal tax laws better as well. We load up our tax bills with special tax breaks, making the IRS Code totally incomprehensible even to the most skilled and practiced CPA. We cannot begin the process of simplifying the Tax Code until we end the practice of random tax cut earmarks.

For too long these earmarks have lived a really quiet existence in the back room, in the dead of night; they slip into language without even the public's awareness to it. But let me just make this other point: Not all earmarks are bad. There are local projects that are worthy of Federal assistance. But worthy projects will be those that stand up to the light of day in public scrutiny and floor debate. And as we work to curb spending and government waste, such accountability is crucial.

So as one of my fellow Members likes to say, and I often quote him, we must put the focus back on the family budget and not on the Federal budget. In fact, until we get a handle on all earmarks, all our other efforts to rein in spending, to reduce the deficit, and to fund true national priorities like protecting our Nation from terrorism will be useless.