Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, from the day of America's birth, our story in this country has been one of heroism. Our movies, our literature, our music paint a colorful panorama of the dreams and inspirations of the men and women who built our Nation up with their own blood and sweat, ingenuity and spirit, courage and perseverance. Ours is a rich and proud history.

The efforts and actions following the tragic events of September 11 have magnified our sense of heroism. The men and women who perished that day have left an indelible mark on the American psyche. The men and women who were helpless victims of the attacks and the brave first responders who rushed into those burning buildings to save them have redefined heroism.

This week, as we mark the fifth anniversary of their last day, we ask God's continued blessing on their souls. We also ask that God continue to shed grace on the families that were left behind. Those families who stood watch by makeshift memorials to their children, their spouses, their parents and the loved ones, they are also heroes. They were the rock, the foundation upon which America rose to even greater heights than ever before. And now we should come together to be their strength.

To those spouses and children who patiently awaited word that their firefighter would emerge from the rubble, to those parents who painfully watched those towering buildings crumble down knowing that your child worked on one of those floors, you are strangers to us no longer. You are family to us all.

September 11 was a day of great tragedy in America and to the world, but in true American spirit it has become a day of great inspiration as well. The lives that were lost shall not have been lost in vain. Let them be what motivates us to live better, to dream bigger and to believe in our own destiny.

Let the angels who carried all those who are lost to peace that fateful day, who cried tears of pain for the lost here on Earth, they also cry tears of joy for heaven's gain.

May we work together on this floor and this House so that someday no child will have to ask again is my daddy coming home.

May God bless the victims of September 11, both those still with us today and those who have moved to a better place. May God bless the men and women fighting overseas, both here and abroad, and may God bless the United States of America

I thank you for that. I thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing this matter to the floor tonight, and I appreciate your comment ``fighting for the little guy'' with regard to the economic issue, and I think we are all fighting for the little guy and the middle guy and the big guy in the sense that we want to have security here at home for America.

What I would like to do, if I may, just spend a couple of minutes speaking about some of the strides we have made in this country through the efforts of this House to make America stronger. I will touch on some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle where they are saying we have not made improvements, specifically in the area of port security.

I represent the Fifth Congressional District in New Jersey, the very top of the State of New Jersey. The people I represent in the Fifth District of New Jersey remember all too well the events of September 11. We live in the shadows, really, of the former World Trade Center as well as three major airports, the second busiest port in the Nation, Newark, and a number of national landmarks as well, such as the Statue of Liberty. So the threat of another attack in our area looms very large in our daily lives. Ensuring that government is doing its best to prevent terror attacks and prepare should the worst occur is more than just an important part of my work here in Washington.

It is a matter of life and death for my neighbors and fellow New Jerseyans. This last Wednesday I had the opportunity to tour Newark Seaport, along with U.S. customs and border protection officials. Basically, I went there to assess current procedures and technologies, since I had been there several years before, to see what they are using now to detect and prevent future threats.

While I was there, there was obviously, still, always things that we can do to make our security more airtight. But what I saw on this tour was encouraging, to say the least. You know, terrorists consistently alter their techniques and targets that keep Americans guessing where and when they might attack next and where we might be most vulnerable.

So that means that we must remain one step ahead of them in every facet, and the funding we have allocated towards port security has really gone a large step in that direction.

When we awoke to the very real dangers of the contemporary world on September 11, 2001, you can say we were shocked to discover the dangers hidden in our unsecured trade infrastructure. But today we have a layered approach to port security that has significantly increased our safety, an approach that is improving daily with the development of new tools, new technology, new methods to ensure that our trade is safe, yet as efficient as possible.

Right now, and I want to make a note of this, right now 100 percent of all containers coming into ports shipped to the U.S. receive a risk assessment. Each and every container must have a detailed manifest that accurately depicts what is being shipped in it and we know who is sending it and receiving that container as well. We also have detailed data on their shipping habits in the past and we can prioritize our inspection efforts now.

So the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the past has led to the efforts to push our borders actually out past where our borders are, all the way back to where the manufacturers who are building those items come from, whether it is in another country or another continent, all those items that come into this country for our consumption.

We now have CBP officers at 44 ports around the world. That is up from zero prior to 2001. By the end of this year, CBP will have officers at 50 ports around the world. That represents 90 percent of all the trade bound for the U.S.

These officers work with the host countries there, and what they do is they inspect the containers before they are even loaded. Then there is radiation detectors at each of these ports to ensure that the trucks entering the port are scanned for the most dangerous of weapons.

As I said before, the terrorist seeks to exploit whatever our weakest link is and find the easiest way to find access to our Nation. Our allies and trading partners have recognized the great risk to worldwide trade posed by terrorists, and they are now volunteering with our Customs Trade-Partnership Against Terrorism Plan, that is the CT-PAT.

This effort allows us to work all the way back with the shippers, the manufacturers, to secure every aspect of trade, from the factory to the railcar to the truck all the way right here to our port. So by strengthening the security before even shipping items reach our stateside ports, we make our ports dramatically safer.

This goes to a point made on the other side saying that all the security at our ports now, when it comes to items coming into our country, are done at our ports. The fact of the matter is that is absolutely wrong, what they were saying. To reiterate, 44 ports around the world right now, it is going to be up to 50 by the end of the year, 90 percent of everything coming into this country.

After the attacks on September 11, the Federal Government invested millions of dollars into new technology to

enhance our port security. Scanning equipment that was unheard of literally 5 years ago is now installed and working in each of these ports. I have seen this stuff. It is amazing.

The latest scanning technology can not only detect radiation, but it can even determine what type of radiation is present within that container by simply a single sweep of that container. It is fascinating. If you are not an engineer, as I am not, it is just amazing what they can do.

Now what they have is new technology, even newer than just a couple of years ago, and what they have done is replaced a three-step process down to a one-step process. So now the entire scan is done in one step, not three, and what this does, of course, is give the agents even more time to scan more containers.

In the State of New Jersey, where I am from, we are fortunate to have Rutgers University. What our university has done through Federal funding is establish a multi-disciplinary Port Security Laboratory and research facility, which I had the opportunity to look at as well. They are using homeland security funds to develop still better detection systems for the future in tracking container ships.

There are also private companies out there as well, besides universities. One such company is SI International. This company, that I had the opportunity to check out as well, they are engaged in some of the most amazing and greatest advances in military technology and they are turning to homeland security that I have ever seen or any of us have seen before, coming up daily with better innovations.

So I sit back not as an engineer just to marvel at this and I applaud all of the brilliant minds for their efforts to make Americans safer. As one Member of Congress, I sleep a little bit better knowing there are great minds out there that are working on these projects from a technical point of view.

We have come great strides, made great improvements since 9/11, and it is in part because of the actions of this House. Just recently, as you know, we have invested $1.2 billion in further appropriations to go for the Security and Accountability of Every Port Act to make sure all the ports have the latest in technology, training and personnel at them.

We must agree here today that we will continue to ensure that our homeland security officials have those resources to prevent future terrorist attacks from using our global trade system ever to take lives of Americans again.

With that, I appreciate again your efforts here on the floor tonight, and applaud your work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous public service of the New Jersey State Law Enforcement Asian-American Advisory Committee. With Americans of Asian heritage making up an increasingly large proportion of our population, both in New Jersey and across the Nation, it is important that law enforcement have a strong relationship with the Asian-American community.

There are an estimated 14 million U.S. residents with Asian heritage. That's 5 percent of the U.S. population. They are by no means of a monolithic culture--with backgrounds from Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, and elsewhere. Asian-Americans have lent this diversity to our national melting pot, enriching America with their contributions to music, food, design, literature, entertainment, and more.

Asian-Americans are our neighbors, our local business owners, our teachers, our elected officials, and also our police officers and first responders. The New Jersey State Law Enforcement Asian-American Advisory Committee helps to bridge the gap both for Asian-Americans in the law enforcement family and in the larger population. Its members engender a greater understanding of the special needs of the Asian- American community.

I am proud to work with them to make New Jersey's neighborhoods safer and bring New Jersey's communities closer, and I am proud to support their efforts to become a national organization.

Mr. Speaker, for 15 years, Mary Lou McCutcheon has served the senior citizens of Sussex County with integrity, dedication and pride. Under her leadership, first at the County Office on Aging and then at the Division of Senior Services, seniors in Sussex County have seen an improved quality of life financially, medically, and socially. She has always put forth extra effort, going far beyond what was required of her job, to address the needs of the elderly in Sussex communities with true compassion.

Mary Lou has also served as a spokesperson for the elderly on both the state and national level. Just last year, Mary Lou was appointed by the Governor to be part of the New Jersey delegation to attend the White House Conference on Aging.

Her achievements have been too numerous to list and will not be forgotten anytime soon. Without a doubt, Mary Lou has touched the lives of many through her public service in Sussex County. Upon the occasion of her retirement, I extend my warmest appreciation to Mary Lou for her years of service and my best wishes for a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, recently in a Manhattan Federal Court, we saw the first conviction worldwide in the Iraqi Oil- for-Food scandal. Billions of dollars illicitly passed between one of the world's most notorious dictators, Saddam Hussein, over 2,200 companies worldwide, and top officials of the U.N. Now, more than 3 years after the scandal was brought to light, Tongsun Park, a Korean national, is now the only individual who has been tried for those gross crimes.

Mr. Park is a familiar player in the game of corruption, having been heavily involved in the 1970s Congressional bribery scandal known as Koreagate. In that case, he saved himself from prison by turning States evidence, but instead of taking this near miss as a lesson, 20 years later, he became involved again in a decidedly more devious scheme that kept a murderous dictator living in high style with his millions of dollars from Saddam Hussein to take care of his ``expenses'' and his ``people,'' as he called them.

During this time that he was on Saddam Hussein's payroll, Park met 20 times with U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Ghali at his personal residence. Apparently, despite his corrupt past, his friendship and guidance were sought by Boutros-Ghali and his Under Secretary, Maurice Strong.

The Oil-for-Food program was the brain child of Boutros-Ghali and Strong. And shortly before the program was finalized, Strong took nearly $1 million from Park. A payment that Strong forgot until he was shown the check. Mr. Strong went on to serve Kofi Annan in a high- ranking capacity as his personal envoy to the Korean peninsula, where he was advised on North Korean issues by Park.

In all likelihood, Park, at 71 years of age, will serve extensive prison time for his crimes. Further trials for his co-conspirators are scheduled for this November.

Unfortunately, the U.N. continues to protect some of the most egregious offenders, including Oil-for-Food Director Ben Sevan, who allegedly took some $147,000 in payoffs. Sevan has claimed that he is innocent, but he has fled to Cyprus to avoid extradition. The innocent defend themselves in the court of public opinion or the court of law, but Mr. Sevan, instead, chooses to hide, living off his illicit gains.

Hundreds of other individuals inside and outside the U.N. were involved in the kickbacks and payoffs of the Oil-for-Food scandal, so I applaud the work of the Federal prosecutors who will continue to bring down indictments, but they need full cooperation of the U.N. if they are to bring justice to those individuals who contributed to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

Now, despite the fact that the corruption reached the highest levels of the U.N., the U.N. has yet to take up important reforms that would prevent such problems in the future. Reform, though badly needed throughout this organization, has been stalled by a group of countries that include some of the worst human rights offenders in the world, those who daily ignore the lofty goals of the U.N. If the U.N. is to fulfill its mandate to be an organization that promotes peace, freedom, and prosperity, then it must set an example of clean ethnics and not of dirty corruption that keeps men and women around the world in poverty and slavery.

The Oil-for-Food scandal completely undermined the work of the sanctions against Iraq and provided the means that, in all likelihood, continue to fuel the work of terrorists in Iraq. There must be justice for Saddam's victims, and the U.N. should not stand in the way of that justice being administered.

Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 347, I am pleased to support this resolution honoring the work of the National Association of State Veterans Homes and the 119 homes across the country that honor our nation's heroes.

I am proud to work on closely with the State Veterans Home in Paramus, New Jersey. This excellent facility is run by caring individuals who work hard each day to see that our veterans are given the care that they earned sacrificing for our nation. Veterans Affairs Secretary Nicholson recently had the opportunity to tour the facility with me and see the tremendous effort that Doris Neibart, director of the home, and all the nurses and staff have put into caring for veterans in the final stages of life's journey.

Throughout the 20th Century and now into the 21st, the American soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine has been a force for good in this world. Working together, they have kept our nation safe from the threats of fascism, communism, and now terrorism. We owe them all a great debt of gratitude and the best care we can provide.

Our nation has a rich history of promoting freedom and spreading democracy, a history that was made possible by countless individuals who served in our armed forces. We remember all who contributed as well as those that stand ready to serve the cause of freedom today. I am proud to represent so many selfless and brave heroes and to honor those who work for their welfare.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my time out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House again this Tuesday evening as part of the weekly Congressional Constitution Caucus efforts to highlight the Federal Government's limited powers as defined by the United States Constitution, specifically, the 10th amendment of our cherished Bill of Rights.

And I would also like to take this time to thank the gentlemen from Texas and Kansas for their efforts, the gentlemen, Mr. Brady and Mr. Tiahrt, who have been leaders on the topic that I am going to discuss briefly, and that is the need for an independent body and procedures to review the merits of the many, many Federal programs that the American taxpayer has to pay for.

In light of our high taxes and even higher deficit, the time for increased efficiency couldn't be greater than today. The American worker is working harder than he should be, sending too much of his hard earned dollars down here to the Federal Government, only to see it wasted on layers and layers of redundancy and red tape and bureaucracy.

And so for that reason, I am here tonight to show my support for Mr. Tiahrt's H.R. 5766 and Mr. Brady's H.R. 3282, which are going to be scheduled for a floor vote later this week on Thursday.

Due to these gentlemen's efforts, we have legislation they have drafted, they have set up a process of reviewing the effectiveness of Federal programs. It is a simple concept to make sure that the Federal Government is as efficient as it could be, in essence, to reduce the amount of time and energy that the American worker has to work, and the money that he has to send from his paycheck down here to Washington.

It is no secret that there are many Federal programs that are simply not serving the American public. There are programs that are duplicative, that are no longer necessary, that simply waste taxpayers dollars. The taxpayer currently works 192 days just to pay for his share of the Federal Government spending. That is just about a week ago they finished working that, and now you are working for yourself. So we are simply asking our constituents to put in a few less hours under these bills to help them to keep more of their money in the Federal budget.

It was Ronald Reagan once said that the closest thing to immortality that he would ever find here on earth is the Federal program. Well, we are trying to end that and make sure that some of

these programs actually end and become mortal.

These programs have survived because, well, in part, because there is a special interests, a cottage industry has grown up, and they live off the taxpayers' largesse.

But Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are not here to represent special interests. We are here to work for the hard working mother and father who send their tax dollars here when, instead, they would like to keep that for their own homes and their own children.

My friends from Texas and Kansas have taken this initiative to craft those legislations to set up procedures to review the bureaucracy and it is one of the top priorities of myself and the members of the Congressional Constitution Caucus to see that this legislation is put into place.

I have had the opportunity to work with Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Brady on this legislation to make recommendations to them. I have worked with them as well, and as members, the gentleman from Utah as well sits here on the floor as well, to make recommendations to make these programs have teeth, because you see, they are already outside organizations that are simply reviewing what the Federal Government does, looks at the efficiency. There is already those outside organizations that can tell Congress what do in a more efficient manner. We have got to make that you if we pass legislation, that these new procedures will actually have teeth and make sure that they are implemented and actually reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government.

One of the suggestions that has been incorporated into Mr. Tiahrt's bill, which I think will do well to move along and add the teeth to it, is simply to add a criteria to the legislation, one to review the duplicity and the efficiency of the Federal programs, and to see whether or not current Federal programs are constitutional; that is to say, do they meet specifics limited enumerated powers that any child in this country could find in Article I, section 8. Thus we ensure that all Federal programs have a constitutionally acceptable and not outside the intended limited size and scope of the Federal Government.

So I greatly appreciate the gentlemen from Texas and from Kansas for their work in this matter.

I also would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from Utah sitting to my right for all of his work in making sure that the American public and Congress continues their focus on the Federal Government and the Constitution and his efforts as far as bringing this attention to the public each Tuesday.

And I close, as we leave the Chambers this week to go back to our districts, as part of our district work period for Congress to encourage the American public to do what other Members have done on this floor as well, to read the Constitution, to look to the limitations that the Founding Fathers have instilled into it.

And I close with this quote from Thomas Jefferson, which he stated February 15, 1791: ``To take a single step beyond the boundaries specifically drawn around the powers of Congress'' in the Constitution ``is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.''

Mr. Speaker, the Founders intended that the Constitution would set those parameters, and I encourage this House to abide by them

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to come to the floor today in support of our legislation, H.R. 1307, the Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. And I also commend the gentleman for his pronunciation of the Musconetcong River as well. It is not an easy river to designate.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman, Chairman Pombo, and all of his staff from the Resources Committee for their help in bringing this bill forward. I appreciate all of their hard work and working along with our offices to that end. I would also like to extend my thanks as well to Majority Whip Roy Blunt and the majority staff, and also the majority leader's office and his staff as well for helping us move things along and getting this legislation to the floor today.

The Musconetcong River is the largest New Jersey tributary to the Delaware River, which we are all familiar with. It is nestled in the heart of the New Jersey Highlands, and it contains a remarkably diverse array of natural and cultural resources. There are over 20 streams along the river, and they support wild trout populations and others. Residents can also enjoy the wonderful scenic views and plants and animal life that are now rare in other parts of New Jersey. The limestone geological features present in the Musconetcong River corridor are unique in the State of New Jersey. And the steep slopes and the forested regions in the upper segments of the river corridor contrast with the historic villages, the pastures, and the rolling agricultural lands that are in the middle and lower end of the valley.

Since the early 1990s, the residents of the river valley have been organizing, coming together to protect this cherished natural treasure, and so the bill before us today represents the works of many individuals over a 15-year period.

So I would like to take this moment to especially thank a couple of those individuals. I would like to thank Susan Dickey, who is chairwoman of the Musconetcong Advisory Committee; and also Beth Styler Barry, she is the executive director of the Musconetcong Watershed Association, for both of their tireless working in constructing this legislation and lobbying to help to get it along its way.

This bill does enjoy broad bipartisan support of all the entire New Jersey congressional delegation, 18 municipalities along the river, and also the National Park Service. Now, New Jersey already is the most densely populated State in the country, featuring growing exurbs which continue to put pressure on the remaining very small wild spaces in New Jersey. While this legislation will not freeze development in that area, it will work to preserve the existing character of the river, a character of true beauty and recreational enjoyment.

The Musconetcong River Management Plan called for in this legislation was developed cooperatively, and it calls for a management framework that acknowledges the importance and preferences for local leadership and the additional preferences and protections afforded by a national wild and scenic river designation. A key principle of the management framework as proposed in this plan is the existing institutions which will continue to play a primary role in the long-term protection of the Musconetcong River.

Again, I would like to thank the gentleman; I would like to thank the chairman for his support and the Speaker for bringing this bill to a vote. H.R. 1307 will ensure that the residents of New Jersey can continue to enjoy the Musconetcong River for its hiking, its canoeing, and fishing along into the future. And I also would like to invite the chairman, for his next backpack trip that he makes, to come and join us along the Musconetcong River in New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to S. 1496, this program, my understanding, creates a 3-year pilot program to distribute Federal duck stamps electronically. Duck stamps are something which I am very familiar with and am completely in support of the overall program. These stamps are sold to hunters, conservationists and collectors, raising funds to acquire land in the national wildlife

refuge system, which, in turn, are then beneficial to the duck hunters in my district and yours as well.

The question goes to the overall cost of this system and who will be paying for the system. Traditionally, under the duck stamp program, it is not a cost to the overall taxpayers of the country. Rather, it is those who enter in to select to buy the duck stamps themselves.

However, this is the point. CBO estimates that this bill will cost $750,000, or three-quarters of a million dollars, over the next 3 years to implement and that the fees authorized will not be sufficient to offset this cost. In light of this report from the CBO, can you assure us that the costs will be generated from the actual sale of the stamps, and can you point out where the error has been, therefore, in the CBO cost estimates in this program?

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I do appreciate that.

So it is your understanding that there is, in essence, a base price for the stamp and then maybe perhaps, I will use the term supplemental cost, which will be the costs going on the sale over the Web or whatever the exchange is.

I apologize for being redundant on this point, is there something specific that I that can look back to specifically in the language that says that, that goes to that point?

I think we are on the same page on this. I want to just make sure that it is revenue neutral.

I thank you.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with full and strong support of H. Res. 921 and stand by our good friend Israel. Israel is once again under attack from ruthless regimes residing within the borders of their Arab neighbors.

At this very moment, Israel is engaged in defensive measures against the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas in response to their recent indefensible actions. These fanatical fringe associations have engaged in kidnapping and murdering Israeli soldiers and have sent over a thousand rockets into civilian Israeli neighborhoods. It is these terrorist groups that threaten peace in the Middle East and security for both Israeli and Arab peace-loving peoples.

The actions taken by Israel are simply an effort to rescue their kidnapped citizens as well as take out as many of the 14,000 Katyusha rockets controlled by Hezbollah and the unknown number of Qassam rockets controlled by Hamas already aimed at Israel. In taking action against Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is exercising their unquestionable right to self-defense against unprovoked attacks on its sovereign territory by terrorist groups.

Israel exercised great restraint in not responding to the four separate rocket attacks on its people over the past year. Since Israel's handover of Gaza, the terrorists there have used that territory to launch more than 1,000 rocket attacks in the past 6 months alone. They act now because they must.

Hezbollah is not only a significant aggressor and threat to Israel, but has also been a sworn enemy of the United States. Before 9/11, it had killed more Americans than any other terror group. It was in 1983 that Hezbollah killed 257 Americans when they bombed the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Perhaps the most troubling scenario in all of this is who is actually pulling the strings in these attacks. Since its inception, Hezbollah has received active support from Iran and Syria, which provide the terrorist group with an estimated $100 million annually. Iran has also actively helped fund Hamas which has also claimed some responsibility for the kidnappings that precipitated this turmoil. Iran's leaders proudly declare that ``Israel should be wiped off the map.''

I urge the nations of the Middle East to join with the State of Israel in condemning the horrific actions of these evil terrorists and in promoting real peace and stability for all people of the region.

I wish the Israeli people safety and security and pray for a quick resolution in these troubling times.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Seton Hall University on the occasion of their 150th anniversary. The University is located in South Orange, New Jersey and is a community of 1,500 employees, 10,000 students, and 70,000 distinguished alumni. From the university's humble beginnings as a small local diocesan college, Seton Hall has grown into New Jersey's largest Catholic university. Founding Reverend, Bishop James Roosevelt Bayley, had not only a patriotic attachment but also a personal one to the school's namesake: Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton, the first American-born saint and his aunt. Using her devotion to values-based education as a guide, Seton Hall embarked on their noble mission to educate young minds in New Jersey.

The university has remained a steady ground for its faculty and students, even through catastrophes like fire and war, always remembering their motto, ``No Matter What the Hazard, Yet Forward.'' This resilient spirit has seen Seton Hall through these historic 150 years and will surely carry them into a bright future. Seton Hall is recognized as a leader in educational technology and will continue to attract the best and the brightest to their campus.

As reflected in their mission, Seton Hall students are not only prepared with a well-rounded education but also a unique focus on service that prepares them to become citizen leaders in their professional and community lives.

I congratulate Seton Hall University on their 150th anniversary and encourage them to remain vigilant on their mission to mold intelligent and ethical scholars.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in my fullest support for the King amendment, and also his work to make sure that all political barriers to participation are removed. But we are clear that foreign language ballots do no such thing.

There are three reasons why I support the King amendment. First, section 312 of the current code says anyone coming into this country as a naturalized citizen must be able to be proficient in reading, writing and understanding the English language. So there should be no basis for requiring the ballots to be in another language.

In fact, we are ignoring the current law in providing a disincentive for new citizens to assimilate into this country without this amendment.

Secondly, as already pointed out, this is in fact yet another unfunded mandate on the States. Talk to your county commissioners and they will tell you how much this costs them. And I should also point out that this amendment does absolutely nothing, nothing to require that all ballots be in English. We simply say under this amendment that the States and localities will decide how to implement it themselves.

Third, this bill currently is an arbitrary and capricious attack against individuals by insulting the voters by simply implying that with a foreign language surname that they cannot understand the language. I support the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me the time. And I also appreciate the gentleman from Iowa for your work on this issue. I came to the floor to address the issue that you were just touching upon, and that was the issue of bilingual or multi-lingual ballots.

But before I get there, let me just touch on something you mentioned because you raised an important point, and that is that the current extension of the Voting Rights Act, as you referenced going forward for 25 years, looks all the way back to the initial status and the initial data from the early 60s, mid-60s.

You could step back for a moment and say what was the fundamental problem that they were trying to address, legitimately so, at that time? And I think you might say you would put it into two categories, one personal and the other institutional. Personal, just meaning the individuals who may have been involved in the particular voting districts at the time that may have been creating illegitimate voting barriers for people of different nationalities or different race or what have you. And the other would be institutional, and that is to say that at that point in time, there were in actuality in America, unfortunately, particular institutional barriers as well in place. So you could look and say there was two elements that the Voting Rights Act had to address. But that, as you also pointed out accurately so, was 40 some odd years ago. Those institutional barriers fortunately have all been removed. The personal ones, though, interesting, I would think just by the advent of time also have to have been removed as well because the people who were elected to office in the mid-60s, for one reason or another, are no longer with us today, at least not in elected office. So the two aspects that the Voting Rights Act were specifically going to address from the data back then and the specifications of who was in place and what the institutions are no longer with us, not to say that we may not have other personal situations that may crop up today in the future. And that is why I think you come to the floor, and other Members do, such as myself, says that we should strive in this House, and in the House just down the halls from here as well to make sure that all barriers, personal or institutional, today and in the future, will always be removed, and that you will have the fullest level of political participation that you can have. So I appreciate you bringing out that point of just exactly what we are dealing with when we are dealing with the Voting Rights Act.

But I came to the floor to address the issue of the multi-lingual ballots. And I want to begin by giving credit where credit is due, because those who are listening here tonight, realizing that the bill is coming to the floor tomorrow, may think, based upon some of your comments and other things, that things are moving forward just in a legitimate and a good manner, and that we are going to succeed in this area of eliminating multi-lingual ballots.

Well, the credit, as my dad always said, ``give credit where credit is due.'' And the credit, if we are successful in the amendment coming to the floor tomorrow, are due to the gentleman to my right, the gentleman from Iowa, because I will say this, that it was in an RSC meeting, Republican Study Committee meeting, which meets on Wednesday afternoons here, where you came to address the group, brought this to my attention, and I think to the attention of a lot of people in the RSC for the first time.

I was struck by it, that this is an issue that needed to be addressed. And I was a little bit concerned that there was not enough agitation, aggravation or concern among my colleagues that this was going to be addressed. But you were a driving force and reassured me, you said, ``Scott, I think we are going to be able to build up the momentum on this. I think we are going to be able to get the word out on this, and I think once people realize just exactly what is in the Voting Rights Act, what the problems are and what the changes are needed, we are going to be successful.'' I was not as positive as you were at that moment, but you were dogged on that like you are dogged on so many other things, and I think that with the support of our colleagues here tomorrow, and if we hear from the voters who listen to this each evening, if they make sure that their Members hear from their concerns that we will be successful on this. So I come initially just to applaud you and salute you for your dogged determination.

The problem with the Voters Rights Act and the multi-lingual ballots, I think, can be said also to fall under a couple of different categories. First is the length of time that you would look for if we do not eliminate it, that it would continue for. It will continue for 25 years. And so just as there was a problem of looking back to the 60s and looking at that past data that is incorrect now as we here try to legislate today, I would hazard a guess that the circumstances in this country will be significantly different than they are today 25 years hence.

Now, I have been here now for 3 years, just as the gentleman from Iowa has been as well, and I can think of many other very important significant legislations that we have reauthorized. But for the life of me, and I stand to be corrected, I cannot think of any other bill, any other important issue, whether you are dealing with the air, the water, the environment, our schools, our education or our health, our defense or otherwise, I cannot think of any other areas, and again I stand to be corrected, where we have reauthorized something for two and one-half decades. So I think that is the first area that we need to be addressing, and you are rightfully so for bringing it up.

Just as a side note on this, I did put in an amendment that would limit this down to 6 years, but that was the proverbial compromise amendment if we were not successful in getting your amendment to the floor tomorrow which would eliminate the multi-lingual ballots entirely. But as I understand, the Rules Committee has met, 4 hours ago, around 3:00, and they saw the wisdom of going your road of at least allowing the vote on the floor. So we will go for that vote and not for the limitation of 6 years.

The second part, the difficulty or the problem with the current status of the VRA, one being the length of time, the second one being what is in the current law right now. We are really not, by allowing multi-lingual ballots to continue, we are not really enforcing current law. Current law, and I should have it right here, says that if you come into this country, legally and become a legal naturalized U.S. citizen and therefore have the right to vote, current law states that you must, according to the law, under section 312 I think you referenced, if not on the floor tonight, in previous times, an applicant must demonstrate, ``an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write and speak in ordinary usage the English language.''

So when you think about it, who are the people who are allowed to vote in this country? Well, they fall into two categories, one, you were born here and so you are a legal citizen, which means you went through the entire education process, age 1 through 18 in this country. So hopefully you have gone through our fine public schools or private or otherwise schools and so you should be able to read the English language.

Second is the naturalized citizens. Naturalized are those who come through and come through the process, and those individuals are those people I have just cited section 312, who have certified, attested to, they have taken a test, a citizenship test, if you will, to become a citizen of this country. That test is administered in English. And at the end they basically certify that they can, that they possess the ability to read, write and speak the English language. So if they are able to do that, if they are able to take a test in the English language, then you would think they should also be able to complete a simple U.S. ballot in any municipality or county or state. So that is the second point, that we are basically ignoring current law by continuing on with multi-lingual ballots.

Thirdly, the problem is that this is, once again, another unfunded Federal

mandate on the county governments, municipal governments and the like. I was on the phone about I guess 3 weeks ago, some time after you were speaking at the RSC, and I was speaking with election commissioners throughout the State, my State of New Jersey, and they were telling me about the costs that they have to be engaged in to pay for it. It comes out of the taxpayers' pockets to print up and publish and mail out these multi-lingual ballots. That comes out of local taxpayers. Doesn't come out of this House. Doesn't get appropriated from Washington. And so that is just another example of where we are sending down the rules. We are putting out the mandates by passing the VRA with this language in it, but someone else foots the bill. So there is another problem with the VRA, that it is an unfunded mandate.

Another, fourth aspect is the basically arbitrary and capricious nature in the way that the multi-lingual ballots are implemented under the VRA and have been in the past and will be unless the King amendment is passed tomorrow.

And I think you have touched upon this in the past, but let us make the point clear to those who don't follow it, that the way you look to determine whether or not a multilingual ballot is necessary and required under the VRA is to say whether or not 5 percent of the population in that respective voting district cannot speak the English language.

One of the primary functions or processes in order to determine that is to look at the surnames of those individuals, and I think you have already given examples, and other people that have come to this floor have given examples, that just because you have an Asian surname, it does not necessarily mean that that is your language and you cannot speak English. Just because you have an Hispanic surname does not mean that you cannot read or write the English language. And in some sense, therefore, it is insulting to those individuals.

So the fourth aspect is the arbitrary and capricious nature of the way that the multilingual ballot law is required and enforced; and because it is arbitrary and capricious, it creates two things: It creates a disincentive for those people who are new to this country to assimilate into this Nation and learn the predominant language, which is English, so it is a disincentive to them.

And, secondly, I guess the word to be almost an insulting nature to them, that just because you are new to this country or may have been here for several years as naturalized citizens that you don't possess the ability to learn to read and write the English language.

And I will close on this. When I had the opportunity to speak with some election commissioners, they have told me that they have received letters from voters in their district complaining that they got a multilingual ballot, saying, in essence, What are you saying about me? Is the government saying that I am not smart enough to read and speak the English language? So the people, basically, were insulted, if you will, by the fact that just because they have an Hispanic surname or another surname of sorts that the government has taken the position that they cannot read and write the English language.

So there are one, two, three, four problems: that it is an overly extended time for reauthorization; that we are not complying with or basically ignore the current law, which is a law that requires people, when they come into this country, to attest to the fact that they can speak and read and understand the English language; thirdly, that this is yet again another unfunded mandate by the Federal Government; and, fourthly, that it is basically an arbitrary and capricious standard that we are applying to the States.

Applying the 5 percent rule in basically an insulting and discriminatory matter, discriminatory in the sense that if there is another ethnic group, another individual group there that has maybe 4 percent, 4.5 percent, they do not rise to that level, but someone at 5 percent does rise to that level.

So there are four basic problems that lead the gentleman from Iowa and me to believe that there is not a fundamental reason for us to continue the VRA multilingual ballot.

And I would hope that we will get sufficient votes tomorrow, Mr. King, to pass your amendment and move forward to correcting this portion of the VRA.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who came before me this evening to join with us, as we do each Tuesday evening as members of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, to come to the floor to discuss constitutional issues; and this evening to discuss the philosophy, the intent, the foundations of the 10th amendment.

As we discussed, and you have heard already, this amendment really could be said to be the most important amendment in defining what the Founding Fathers' vision of the role of the Federal Government should be.

As stated earlier, the 10th amendment states clearly: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

These historic words, penned by the Founding Fathers, some of the most ingenious political minds of their time or anytime in the world's history, set forth an important principle: that the Federal Government may exercise specific powers that are listed in the Constitution. All you need to do is simply look to it, for example, article I, section 8, and they enumerate the powers that the Federal Government has. It really does not even go on for more than one-and-a-half pages. These are specific powers that the Federal Government has. The others are the remaining powers that are reserved to the States and the people respectively.

Unfortunately, just as the authors of the Constitution have long passed, so too have many of their foundation principles for our government here. Between an ever-expanding Federal Government that for decades now has crept into many other facets of areas once

left to local control, to a Federal judiciary that in many instances completely ignores the intent of Federalism, all resulting in a Federal Government that has become wildly inefficient and just a huge bureaucracy.

So the old concept is really nothing new. It is just that we have lost it over time. Our founders were very clear when they established our system of government. They intended to set up a republic, a republic really, you could almost say, of sovereign states capable of self-governing, but with a small central government with clearly defined and limited powers.

As someone else previously stated, I think the gentleman from Utah, our Constitution can be thought of as a social contract, a contract between the people and their government. We must think of this most important document as a trade between the rights given up between these competing interests. One of the most important interests that we receive then from the Federal Government, as set forth in the Constitution, is the defense of this Republic.

All other inherently government services, the founders were very clear about, were to be contracts between themselves and the local government and contracts between themselves and the State governments. We refer to this as Federalism. The only powers specifically listed in the Constitution are to be administered by the Federal Government. All others are reserved to the people respectively.

Now, earlier last month, I guess it was, we had the discussion on part of this forum to look at one of the legislations that is coming down the pike that will help facilitate this, and that is the sunset commission. We have discussed this in the past, and I will just talk on it briefly right now.

The sunset commission will try to rein in the Federal Government by looking at the agencies and the powers that are already out there. We have suggested that it could be given, maybe even stronger, be given some teeth to it, and one of the ways you do that is to set it up in a BRAC-like format so that when it comes to Congress, it will actually eliminate those ineffective government programs with an up-or-down vote.

Second, and maybe an important change we can make in this to make it even truer, is to do this, and that is to provide provisions in that legislation to say that you will not simply look at the effectiveness of programs or whether programs are duplicative. You will also look at whether or not the programs of the Federal Government are constitutional.

Even if a program is not duplicative of other Federal programs or State programs, even if a Federal program is effective that is being performed right now, the underlying and most seminal question that we must ask ourselves is, do we, as Members of Congress, have the constitutional authority to do what the legislation is asking us to do. If you put that into something like a sunset commission, that we can review this as each bill and each legislation comes up, each program that is out there, we will be moving in the right direction.

Let me just close by looking at some of the good news that just came out recently, today as a matter of fact, and that is the economic numbers showing that we are actually reining in Federal spending. We are seeing our deficit go down on the Federal level, and I am happy about that.

I am happy that I have been able to join with other members of this delegation and Members of this House to try to rein in the government and try to bring it in the right direction.

We must be awfully careful, though, that when we get the fiscal house of the Federal Government in order that we do not then decide that we will start spending money elsewhere. That would be the wrong direction to take. We have been able to get to where we are simply by putting our house in order as far as spending; we have been able to lower tax rates, allow folks to be on the family budget and not on the Federal budget, to have a more free-market approach.

So I will just say this: that if we close by putting those limitations on the Federal Government to restrict our approach to it and make sure that our philosophy is the same as the Founding Fathers, then we will see that there is both a practical and a fundamental and foundational approach to doing so, and that is a constitutional government.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride and with an overwhelming sense of sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to the lifelong career of public service of Liz Coventry.

Liz has been a loyal supporter, advisor, friend, and confidante for nearly a decade. Throughout my years in the New Jersey State Legislature and my tenure in Congress, Liz has been an integral part of the team that I depend upon and my constituents look to for assistance and guidance. There is no job too big for Liz's breadth of expertise and knowledge--she can accomplish any task before her. And, there is no job too small for Liz--she is a true team player, pitching in whenever she can and wherever she is needed.

In her capacity on my Congressional staff, Liz has been a great help to countless constituents. She truly takes each individual case to heart. No one who sits with Liz at her desk ever feels like a case number; she gives each person a real personal touch.

Liz has also been organizing a number of special projects for Fifth District residents, such as the art competition and a veterans history project. Her dedication to the art competition is worthy of the art patronage of the Medici Family during the Renaissance. She makes everyone of these young artists feel like Michelangelo or DaVinci. And, her commitment to the veterans history project is unparalleled. She is a one-woman USO, making every veteran she speaks with feel like the marines at Iwo Jima.

Liz has recently decided to take a well-deserved retirement after years in selfless public service. I know that my whole staff, my constituents, and I will miss her dearly, but we wish her the very best as she takes this grand step.