Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor one of my constituents, Charleston firefighter Phil Pfister on becoming the World's Strongest Man.

This award was bestowed after a long and arduous competition amongst 25 athletes from around the world. The ten day contest in Sanya, China included events such as bus pulls, car pushes, stone lifts, and tire turns.

Mr. Pfister, is the first American to win this competition in 24 years. After trailing in the early events, Mr. Pfister focused his strength, discipline, and determination to win the final five events leading him to the title. His hard work and dedication during training certainly paid off.

Nonetheless, after all his glory of winning this prestigious competition, Mr. Pfister returned to West Virginia a few days later and promptly resumed his daily work of protecting our wonderful city of Charleston as a firefighter.

I am proud to honor Mr. Pfister for his accomplishments in the World's Strongest Man competition and his dedication to the Charleston community through his service as a fireman. West Virginia is truly fortunate to have him as a Mountaineer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, and I would also like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Wilson, for her doggedness and her determination to do this right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. We are at war against a sophisticated, worldwide terrorist adversary that uses all of the advantages modern day technology has to offer.

We know that these terrorists are continuing to plot attacks against the United States, our allies, and our interests around the world. In August, the coordination of the United States, British, and Pakistani intelligence helped British authorities apprehend terrorists plotting to blow up aircraft bound for the United States.

Against this backdrop, it is absolutely critical that our government have the ability to monitor electronic communications by terrorist organizations. We are talking about allowing the government to intercept communications of cold-blooded killers who seek to do our Nation harm, not grandchildren e-mailing their grandmother.

The FISA process should be used whenever possible, but we cannot hinder the ability of this President or future Presidents to monitor communications that could stop a terrorist attack. It is appropriate to allow the President to authorize electronic surveillance when there is an imminent threat of an attack against our country, when we have identified the responsible organization, and when we have reasonable belief that the person being targeted is communicating with a terrorist group.

We must do everything possible to prevent future terrorist attacks. Our enemies will not delay their plans to harm our citizens while we go to court to obtain a warrant. We have to be right 100 percent of the time.

The bill strengthens congressional oversight of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and requires FISA warrants in most cases, the exceptions being after an armed attack, after a terrorist attack, or when the threat is imminent.

The bill is reasonable. It protects the rights of our citizens; but, most importantly, it will preserve a critical authority that we must have to protect our homeland. We are at war and this is critical to our winning that war. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, today we congratulate the Main Street Baptist Church in Point Pleasant, WV. On October 28, 2006, the Main Street Baptist Church will celebrate its 100th anniversary.

This church has helped change the lives of many in the Point Pleasant area and in the state. This is a wonderful time for the congregants of Main Street Baptist Church to celebrate with loved ones and take time to reflect on the many accomplishments and improvements this church has made in the community.

I want to thank Main Street Baptist Church for their service to the community of Point Pleasant and all of their contributions to our great state. May your next 100 years be just as fruitful.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1015 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I would like to now recognize the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond, and then I will yield to the chairman of the committee.

First of all, I think this is serious business. When you talk about one of the most precious rights we have as citizens, it is to vote. Obviously that is how we all arrived here. And I think we have, shamefully, a very low percentage of people who are voting, when we compare worldwide, in this country. So I think highlighting voting and voting patterns and the way to vote and the way to legally vote is an important issue.

But what I have heard just now is a very cynical and I think slightly mean-spirited attack on why we believe and why the committee has brought forward very thoughtful legislation on voting and voter identification.

If you want instances of voter fraud, come to the State of West Virginia. We just had five people indicted and sentenced in Federal court for this very thing.

If you want to talk about the Commission on Federal Election Reform, which was quoted just a minute ago, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, they recommended this very thing, that photo ID be used as an identifier to vote.

And I can quote as well, to go to the other point, the former mayor of the city of Atlanta, Andrew Young, who talks about the concept of a photo ID for voting. I think this is an interesting point he makes: At the end of the day, a photo ID is a true weapon against the bondages of poverty. Anyone driving through a low-income neighborhood sees the ubiquitous check-cashing storefronts which thrive because other establishments, such as supermarkets and banks, won't cash checks without a standard photo ID.

To go to the point of order that has been raised, this is an authorizing committee. The House Administration Committee is an authorizing committee. They have made provisions in the bill for appropriators to provide the appropriate funds of money that would be necessary to create the photo ID for the, and I will take the gentleman's figure, the 7 million people who are without.

I think it is important to note that the REAL ID Act which is going to be going into effect in the next several years is going to require federally issued photo ID as a means for identification and citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is very thoughtful, very well respected, and certainly is known for his intense study of a subject, and this one is no different.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules granted a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as reported by the Committee on House Administration shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is our most cherished freedom as American citizens. Over the years our Nation has evolved and progressed to include many more citizens in the voting process. Who could forget the wonderful accomplishments of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, and Martin Luther King and countless others who fought to extend the right to populations that had previously been discriminated against?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that today all American citizens, regardless of gender, race, creed or ideology, are free to vote for candidates from the Presidential election all of the way through to the school board.

But, sadly, there are those who have taken advantage of this cherished freedom by distorting our election system. We have all heard stories about the rolls of deceased voters mysteriously voting from the grave, sometimes even voting more than once.

Furthermore, with an increasing population of illegal immigrants populating our States, the possibility of noncitizens voting continues to grow. When voters go to the polls, they are electing representatives like us that will set policies for all citizens. Therefore, we should not allow these outcomes to be affected by individuals who have intentionally broken the law.

In my home State of West Virginia, I am not proud to say, five individuals were recently convicted of illegally influencing elections. Our State has long suffered from these illegal and unethical tactics used to stifle the voice of our voters. While many of these problems that have been plaguing our system cannot be fixed overnight, the underlying legislation is a step in the right direction.

The Federal Election Integrity Act simply requires that in order for a person to vote, they must be able to show proof of identification with a photo ID by 2007, and then 3 years later, in 2010, all voters will be required to provide a photo ID that could not have been obtained without proof of citizenship.

We all understand this is going to be a challenge for some of our rural, elderly and indigent populations, but the REAL ID Act already requires all people to have a compliant ID to prove their legal status by 2008.

Furthermore, this legislation authorizes funds to reimburse the States for providing IDs to the indigent at no cost. Seventeen States currently have similar requirements in their laws, most recently Arizona.

The Secretary of State for Arizona recently testified that voter registration has increased in Arizona by 15.4 percent since the implementation of Proposition 200, a measure that requires all voters to present identification at the polls before casting a ballot, as well as provide a proof of citizenship before registering to vote. Recent reports show that the primary election held last week in Arizona, that there were no stumbling blocks to this new provision. Certainly this has been a success as more voters are registering, and they have peace of mind that their registration is protected by proof of their identify.

During a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 81 percent of those surveyed expressed support for requiring ID at the polls. Clearly the voting population is concerned with voter fraud and is yearning for action. Even former President Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, a bipartisan duo, have endorsed this approach.

Mr. Speaker, integrity in our election system is a goal that is shared across party affiliation. We want everyone to participate, to vote, and to know that their vote counts. And it is my hope that we can all work together to improve our system for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the perspective of a chief election officer of a State is one that can shed great wisdom and knowledge concerning this bill, so it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the author of this bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of clarification. If this goes into effect, and somebody does arrive at the polling place without their photo ID, they would be given a provisional ballot and be permitted to vote with the caveat that they would return within 48 hours to show their photo ID. I just wanted to make that point of clarification.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, my esteemed colleague the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked for examples? I have an example here of a study that was done by the Johns Hopkins University computer science students that found 1,500 dead people listed who had voted in past elections. Now, you want to talk about onerous voting. It is difficult to get out of a grave and vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, after the fact I cannot cite you one example, but I don't think the gentleman would deny that fraud occurred and has occurred under this.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We don't want to disenfranchise anybody from voting, because voting is something that we all cherish not only in this Hall, but in every household in America. I believe that asking somebody to show a photo ID, which we do for many things, to buy cigarettes, beer, get on an airplane, travel, and many other instances, cash a check, we are asked for photo ID in many instances, and I think we provide in this bill for those who might not have photo ID who need it.

Once they get it, I think it would be viewed as a positive thing for them, so they wouldn't be going, as they do in many cases to check- cashing facilities that don't require a photo ID, and they end up paying 30 and 40 percent surcharges for that.

I would like to say, in my State of West Virginia, we just had five Federal convictions for vote fraud, vote buying. So it exists. And it is a defeating thing that occurs from State to State, because it defeats those of us who get up on that election morning or have gotten up earlier to early vote or send in our absentee ballot. It feels like our vote is being disenfranchised.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor and pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to read from the committee record from the hearing on Arizona, if I might. And this is from the Honorable Andrew Thomas, the Maricopa County Attorney. He talks about instances of voter fraud, they were charged of filing false documents, a class 6 felony.

Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell referred these matters to the county attorney's office after her office received jury questionnaire forms from the county jury commissioner. These forms were filled out by potential jurors who claimed they were unable to serve on a jury because they were not citizens. The county recorder's Office found that they claimed to be citizens when they filled out the voter registration form. Four of these five defendants voted in at least one election. In addition to the 10 charged defendants, they were reviewing 149 other cases. The county recorder had received inquiries from people seeking to become U.S. citizens who had been told by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain a letter from her office confirming they had neither registered to vote nor voted. And today, a review of these matters has turned up 37 noncitizens who have registered to vote.

So I think this is a good reason to get out of Washington, D.C., to have real-life testimony across the country, which I know we do quite often. And this comes from the State of Arizona.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for presenting his viewpoints on this, and we obviously have great differences.

I think the underlying legislation is an important step towards improving the integrity of the election system. We have both talked about the lack of participation in our elections and how that is something that, really, as Americans we are not very proud of. But if we don't have a system that has integrity, our participation rates are going to go even lower, and that is a concern, I believe, for all of us.

We have made great strides towards extending the right to vote to all citizens, but there is still work to be done to improve the integrity of our system. This is something the American people have spoken loudly on, with 81 percent of the population favoring the measures taken in this underlying legislation.

I am pleased that my colleague inserted the report from former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. They wrote in the New York Times in September of 2005 concerning this report: ``Our concern was that the differing requirements from State to State could be a source of discrimination, and so we recommended a standard for the entire country, the REAL ID card, the standardized driver's license mandated by Federal law, last May. With that law, a driver's license can double as a voting card. All but 3 of our 21 commission members accepted the proposal in part because the choice was no longer whether to have voter ID, but what kind of voter ID the voters should have.''

So I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican

Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United

States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).

Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question

vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not

possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for not only his interest in this legislation, but his willingness to come to my State and his support.

I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission through 2011. My State of West Virginia is the only State fully within the boundaries of the ARC, and I am proud of the work that the Commission has accomplished in our State.

Since the last reauthorization, three counties in my congressional district, and I have 18 counties, three of those counties, Lewis, Upshur and Randolph, have been removed from the list of economically distressed counties. That is good news. Putnam County, another one of my counties, has jumped to the competitive category.

I am pleased that this legislation codifies ARC's at-risk designation to protect counties like Lewis and Upshur that have fragile economies and could be in danger of falling back into the distressed category. This bill will permit the ARC to fund up to 70 percent of the cost of projects in designated at-risk counties.

The chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Shuster, the ARC Federal cochair Anne Pope, and I held a listening session earlier this month in Randolph County to hear some of the ways that the ARC has helped spur growth. We heard from several local elected officials, and we heard from really a variety of different entities in the county on how the ARC has helped spur development in Randolph County.

The director of the West Virginia Wood Technology Center spoke to us about an ARC grant that helped workers learn the skills they need to work in the timber industry, in the forest industry. We heard from a teacher who received an entrepreneurship award to train high school students and actually won an award for that and traveled to Washington with her student to accept that award, and has since spurred that student on to graduating from college and becoming an accountant.

We heard from the chairman of a rural public service district who is expanding sewer service with ARC funds. And we heard from the director of a regional planning council that assisted a seven-county region in obtaining grant funds for economic development.

Job training, economic development, education benefits, housing and helping to build a community infrastructure are just some of the achievements of the ARC in this one county over the last several years.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when every West Virginia county and every Appalachian county is strong enough economically that the ARC is unnecessary. Until then, since 1965 until in 2011, until then, however, ARC is a tremendous asset in improving communities across the region.

I know that there is some disagreement regarding this legislation, we heard about that, but the ARC and the programs it supports has broad bipartisan support across Appalachia. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent, and I hope my colleagues will pass the bill so that it can be signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill before us because we need to act immediately to seal our borders and protect the American people.

My office is full of bricks, bricks mailed to me by my constituents, and to the offices of many of my colleagues, with urgent pleas to act to secure our borders. These bricks are more than a strong message from our constituents. They represent the passionate pleas of a country that knows we are losing the battle at our border and the demands of a Nation that understands we will never be secure until we have control over who is entering our country.

The Secure Fence Act will take the necessary steps to give our Border Patrol agents the tools they need to regain control of our borders so they can protect our country.

This legislation authorizes additional fencing as well as state-of- the-art technology and surveillance equipment to help us regain control of our borders.

The Secure Fence Act tells the American people we are serious about getting control of our borders, stopping illegal immigration and securing our country.

It is appropriate legislation. It will help get the job done, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Joyce Robinson of her service to the Social Security Administration and to congratulate her on her upcoming retirement.

Mrs. Robinson began her career in 1975 as a Claims Clerk in the Martinsburg, West Virginia Social Security Office. She has held 7 different positions, reaching the level of Special Disability Workload Cadre Manger in the Charleston, West Virginia Social Security Office.

Mrs. Robinson has been recognized numerous times for her outstanding leadership qualities. Her immense knowledge of programs and great interpersonal communication skills led her to gain the distinction of being a liaison to her peers, as well as, to Congressional Staffs and entities outside the SSA office. She will be greatly missed as a helpful resource to me and my staff.

For her dedication and willingness to serve my constituents, the State of West Virginia, and surrounding states, I offer Mrs. Robinson my most sincere congratulations and best wishes for a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, during the August recess, my constituents saw very clearly the need to increase enforcement along our borders. In early August, an illegal immigrant wanted for murder in Texas was found working in a lumberyard near Elkins, West Virginia.

Last week, another illegal immigrant struck and killed 4-year-old Tyler Evans in a car accident in Boone County, West Virginia. The police report alleges that speed and alcohol were factors in the fatal crash. Both illegal immigrants had falsified immigration papers.

I held a roundtable with law enforcement officers and elected leaders and talked with many constituents throughout August to discuss the House border security bill and the Reid-Kennedy amnesty bill. The response was unanimous: No amnesty and increased enforcement along our borders.

We shouldn't stop there. It is critical that we provide employers the ability to check immigration status of employees and hold them accountable for their workers. Clearly, most people who enter illegally are not security threats, but it is critical to our homeland security that we are able to account for the people who enter this country. We need to pass tough immigration reform now. It is too late for Tyler Evans, but we need to act before it is too late for other Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and gentleman from Washington for yielding me time, and I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

First, I would like to thank our leadership for having the foresight and leadership to bring this excellent compromise before the House. I am delighted to have been part of the 48 Republicans that have pushed through letters and meetings and other methods to ask our leadership to bring a vote on the minimum wage to this floor.

I just heard a minute ago these words, ``just raise the minimum wage,'' well, guess what. That is what this bill does.

Let me be clear, with the passage of this legislation, we will raise the minimum wage over the next 3 years to $7.25. This is real relief for those workers who are trying to support a family on a minimum wage job, bringing it closer to a true living wage. I have supported raising the minimum wage for years, and I am glad to see that on this day this vote is coming to the floor.

I am also pleased that we are including death tax relief in this measure. Unlike some of my colleagues, I see this tax relief and minimum wage bill as complementary. The death tax is a punitive measure that unfairly burdens small business owners and farmers. The sustaining of small businesses by keeping their vital assets will allow those making the minimum wage to continue working and hopefully provide greater resources to bring them above the minimum wage.

This is a jobs bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this step forward for workers and the businesses that employ them.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for joining me here this evening in an important discussion that I think should interest all Members. I am going to talk a little bit about how we got started on this.

I am a member of the Rules Committee, and on the Rules Committee we have a Subcommittee on Civility. The chairman asked me to chair the Subcommittee on Civility, and I have some frustrations because now it is just the two of us on the Subcommittee for Civility. But we share a common goal here, and I think that tonight we are going to do sort of a demonstration project.

We are here this evening to highlight a major problem facing the House of Representatives, and that is the continuing lack of civility during floor debate. The blame does not lie with one party or the other; rather, it is incumbent upon all of our Members to maintain an appropriate level of civility and decorum during debate.

The manner in which we address our colleagues on the floor is not only recorded in the Congressional Record, but is also broadcast through C-SPAN to millions of Americans across the Nation each day, and probably around the world. The advent of C-SPAN was a great public service, allowing the public to view the floor proceedings in Congress from their homes, both the good and the bad.

It is healthy for Members to come to the floor and debate the issues facing our Nation, but it must be done in a manner that is respectful of our fellow Members, the people we are elected to serve, and the distinguished body we are proud to serve. I can tell you when I speak to my constituents across the Second District of West Virginia on a variety of topics of concern to all West Virginians, I am always guaranteed one line of applause, and that is when I apologize for the lack of civility in the House of Representatives.

So, tonight, Mr. Cleaver and I will have a good, spirited debate on the tax policies put in place. I firmly believe that the tax policies have spurred the economic growth that we are experiencing and will continue to lead towards a robust economy.

Mr. Cleaver and I do not agree on this tax policy, but we can agree that it is an important debate to have and one that can be conducted in a civil manner. So we are going to highlight our differences of opinion on tax policy and then have a general discussion on improved civility in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to my friend from Kansas City for his opening remarks and any other remarks.

Well, for some additional comments on that, before we move to our policy debate, I think you make excellent points. I want to congratulate you for your initiative on this matter. But I also know this is not a new initiative for you. When you were a Mayor of Kansas City, it was something that you were very dedicated to, a lot of coalition building, a lot of talking across the aisle or talking with maybe unnatural partners that you would not naturally see could be your allies.

And I think that, you know, we know and I know that when we go to our committees and when we go home or when we are in different arenas with our follow Members, Republican or Democrat, we can get a lot done when we are not on screen, or when we are not a talking head on a 60-second campaign or television ad.

I think that the American public has sort of lost faith that maybe we can accomplish things. We know that things get done. I think that what we are running the risk of, and you mentioned collateral damage, what we run the risk of is losing the ear of the American public.

Not only are they not bringing their children to the television to listen to what we are talking about, they are turning us off, because they cannot find the truth in what we are saying. Because we overexaggerate or we try to disparage people's character or lose respect in our arguments.

I think if we lose the attention of the American public, we run the risk of an apathetic country that no longer cares or has faith in their leadership to be able to cut through and cut to the chase and lead. So I think we are not alone in the Congress. There is a Center Aisle Caucus that was put together with Republicans and Democrats together to try to solve this problem.

But I am really pleased that tonight we are going to launch into this debate and see what we can demonstrate and what we can learn. If you will, we are going to go, kind of go free-wheeling. So should I go ahead and start?

I think the question I would ask you on your chart would be if those folks in the $10,000 to $20,000, and I do not know the answer to this, but I surmise that they really do not pay, by the time they get their deductions, by the time they get their child tax credit, by the time they get their marriage penalty erased, by the time the bracket is moved down, the actual amount that they pay in that income tax brackets is probably very small.

While I admit to you a $2 average tax lowering is diminimus. I mean it is nonexistent for anybody. But my question would be, what is their actual tax burden at that level? And would you be advocating giving a tax break to somebody who does not actually pay the tax? We already have the earned income tax credit, where we try to take some of those things into consideration.

Well, I think that the way to pay for a war, the war on terror, it is tremendously expensive. We have had many votes on this.

I think we both agree that in order to stand behind our troops and arm our troops and give them the best technology, we want to make sure that we have the dollars in the Federal kitty to be able to do that. I believe that the tax and growth policies that we have put in place, that we need to have the firm and strong engine of the American economy running on all cylinders.

Because if we do not have businesses producing, if we do not have people employed, then we are not going to have the tax collections that we need to sustain what is a tremendously expensive time in our country's history.

But I would like to say, with the tax relief packages that we passed, the two major ones that we passed, we have had a surge in tax revenues. Just this year alone, tax revenues are running 11.1 percent over last year and a 14.6 percent increase over 2005.

So what does that tell me? That tells me that with more discretionary income for the individual, and we also have a higher per capita salary, rates are going up, with more discretionary interest for small businesses. I live in a State where the main economic engine is small business, so hiring that one more person is very significant in a small State like ours, a rural State. Because of the tax relief and the job growth policies that we have put into place, our engine, our economic engine is roaring in terms of employment, in terms of discretionary, in terms of consumer spending. And I think that is reflected in the numbers of our tax collections being higher and higher.

My State of West Virginia, State tax collections are up over $100 million. I happen to live in an energy-rich State, so because of the energy situation, I do have to put my plug in for coal, because of our coal, we are enjoying a good economic stand.

So I think that the effect of these policies has been for us to be able to have higher tax collections to be able to afford and to be able to cut the growth of the deficit. We were projected that the deficit was supposed to grow by, originally projected to grow $423 billion. That is not good. That is not good. But the good news is it is only expected to grow $296 billion, which is $127 billion less than it was originally projected because of the higher tax.

Well, I think you have hit on an excellent topic in that the deficit is troubling to all of us. I certainly don't want to pass on to my children and grandchildren a heavy and burdensome deficit. And we found ourselves in a position with the recession, with corporate scandals, with the war on terror, with an attack on our Nation where we had to respond, we have had to beef up our defense, beef up our intelligence, beef up our armaments and at a very, very expensive cost. Not even to mention our homeland security costs, something that unfortunately I wasn't here but I am not sure I would have been any wiser.

That is one thing I don't like about our debate in Congress, we all have great hindsight. We can predict what we would have done, but it is hard to say at the time that we would have been right. But I think we let our homeland security reach a point where we just weren't paying attention, and so we have put billions of dollars, and rightfully so, into not only protecting our localities to helping with our first responders. We found that was a real weakness on 9/11. We are now talking about border security and border protection, which is something that is tremendously important to all of us.

So there is no question that the strains and binds on our budget have been very, very difficult. And what we haven't done, along with the tax and growth policies, is we haven't reined in our spending as well as we should on certain areas where we can be much wiser with the Federal dollar.

But we cannot find ourselves in the situation where we are in now, where we have found this year with the larger tax collections of 11 percent higher that has been able to already demonstrate just this first 6 months that we are now able to say that our deficit growth is going to be $126 billion less than it was projected to be simply because we have more tax, a tax revenue that has been spurred by the economic growth that has been spurred, in my opinion, by the tax cuts and reconciliation packages that we passed.

And I would just like to read one thing to remind myself and everybody else, and this is a little off the subject, but if you will allow me, all the individual taxes that we all pay, we pay State sales tax, a lot of us do in West Virginia, we do, 5 percent on food, 6 percent on everything else; State income tax, local property tax, Federal income tax, capital gains tax, dividends tax, State corporate tax, Social Security payroll tax, FICA tax, gasoline tax, gambling tax, cigarette tax, cell phone tax, telephone tax, Federal State tax, State tax, municipal fees.

I mean, we are taxed not to death, but we are getting there. And I think the best thing that we can control here in Congress is our Federal income tax and the income tax that we assess on our small businesses. That is why I think Americans are always very mindful of their Federal taxes on April 15, but I think that come these past April 15s, with the tax relief, families with children, married couples, families in the lower-income brackets who have been moved either off the rolls or down to the 10 percent bracket have all seen, along with those who make more money on your chart, more than the $1 million, have been able to see more money in their pockets so they can have more discretion and more responsibility over their own personal money, and they don't send that money here to Washington where we spend it or, as you said, overspend it.

I guess my question to you would be, in looking at your chart, as just a point of clarification for me, the hand chart, the red is the interest payment. Is that correct?

Your solution that you are advocating would be to raise the taxes from where they are right now to pay and meet this obligation. Is that basically correct?

Okay. To draw a contrast here in our two positions, you would be for eliminating the tax cuts.

I would be for keeping the tax cuts in place, letting them grow for their maturation. I think a lot of them do not kick in for full force until 2010, because the trend that I am seeing is this 11.1 percent more collections, more people working, industrial production increasing 4.3 percent, real hourly compensation rising at 3.2 percent, real consumer spending increasing at 5.1 percent over the first quarter, productivity in the Nation up 3.7.

See, I would say to you that because of the tax relief, because of the job growth package and because of that, we are going to be able to grow ourselves and our economy to meet the needs to be able to take a sizeable chunk out of that red part of your chart.

Well, again, I think we are probably going to agree to disagree on this, our policies, and we have disagreed through our votes, I think, on the floor of the House.

I think what I have appreciated about your argument is you have talked about the problems that we have, and I think that is what we need to do in this body. We need to agree on what our problems are, and we have not even touched on some of our bigger ones like Social Security and Medicare for the future, and this is all going to pool into this argument.

So, my suggestion would be that, of course, I believe, and I think I have emphasized that point quite enough tonight, that the policies that we have put in place have us on the right track. What the future will bear, the future will bear, and we will be able to see, but had we not had these policies in place, I do not think we would see this engine moving as quickly as we have.

So I am going to rest my argument here on those facts, on the economic facts, on the facts that in my State of West Virginia, we have some of the historically lowest unemployment we have ever had; and that we have 50,000 West Virginians who have children who are now paying fewer taxes; and that we have 94,000 taxpayers in West Virginia who are benefiting from a lower tax rate; and that we have 510,000 taxpayers who now are in the 10 percent bracket; and we have 194,000 married couples who are paying less, and these are not the wealthy 1 percent.

These are the hardworking people of West Virginia who live in a beautiful State, the same State they want to raise their children in and want to have a future there.

So I will rest my case with that and listen to your final argument.

Well, that is a very respectful debate, and if you are ready, I think we will just kind of close. I think we have covered a lot of our bases, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for, I think, a very instructive debate, and I think we have learned a lot from each other. I certainly have, and I would now like to

move just a little bit about the civility issue in Congress.

I found a couple of quotes, one of which was from Winston Churchill who said, ``Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in the world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.''

None other than our first President, President George Washington, when he began, he wrote, ``Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior,'' and it is fun to thumb through this because some of them are telling us not to spit on the floor and make sure we go out clothed and all those things that I think we do do that all right. But the very first one that he has is, Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present. He also said, ``Think before you speak, pronounce not imperfectly, nor bring out your words too hastily, but orderly, distinctly.'' Those are wise, wise words, I think, from our very first President. I am sure that if he is in Mt. Vernon listening to us right now, or not us, but some of the debate that we have on the floor of the House, then he is not too proud at the level of disrespect that we sometimes show our colleagues.

So I want the thank you for joining with me in this effort. I want to say to all the other Members on both sides that we want this to be an ongoing practice, where we will pick a good topic that we can debate civilly and other such exercises, and we are going to grow this committee, the two of us, so we can return this body to the great esteem, the great integrity, the great respect and the great historical honor that I believe it is due. So I thank Mr. Cleaver.

I agree with the gentleman, and I have to say additionally that I am a mother of three, and I think sometimes that the lessons that we teach our children, when we come here, we have forgotten. We teach our children not to interrupt; we teach our children to show respect to their classmates and their parents; we teach our children to not say bad words; and we teach our children to listen or be quiet when other people are talking. I have even been in this Chamber when I have heard hissing at another Member when they are speaking.

So I pledge to you my cooperation, and I enjoy your eloquent words.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

I am a proud cosponsor of the Pledge Protection Act, and, like many of my West Virginia constituents, I am disappointed that this legislation is necessary.

I was disappointed 4 years ago when two judges of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our Pledge, our statement of shared national values, was somehow unconstitutional.

I do not take legislation that removes an issue from the jurisdiction of this court system lightly. This legislation is appropriate, however, because of the egregious conduct of the courts in dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance. By striking ``under God'' from the Pledge, the Ninth Circuit has shown contempt for the Congress which approved the language, and, more importantly, shows a complete disregard for the millions of Americans who proudly recite the Pledge as a statement of our shared national values and aspirations.

One of the many great things about living in a Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, is that no one is required to recite the Pledge if they disagree with its message.

We are a Nation that respects minority opinions. Those who disagree with the Pledge have every right to attempt to convince others of their point of view and convince Congress to change it. That is how our system works. Instead, the Ninth Circuit would allow the opinion of one person who disagrees with the Pledge to override the opinions of tens of millions of Americans who want to express their belief that America is in fact one Nation under God.

I am proud to stand with the vast majority of Americans and certainly the vast majority of West Virginians who support our Pledge of Allegiance the way that it is. We do not need Federal judges to dictate what our Pledge says. I hope my colleagues will join me and support the Pledge Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, today we recognize the American Legion Post No. 91 and Auxiliary Unit No. 91 in Romney, WV, and Post No. 137 in Capon Bridge, WV. Both are located in my district, Hampshire County.

Post No. 91 has a long tradition of monthly meetings since 1920, sponsoring strong child and youth programs, and flying flags on holidays such as Memorial Day, Flag Day, the Fourth of July, and Hampshire Heritage days. Post Commander Madelaine Shallcross has boosted membership to 450 members.

Auxiliary Unit No. 91 is led by 7-year President Diana Haines. Founded in 1926 with only 22 members, it has now grown to be part of the third largest unit in the State. The 435 members volunteer and maintain the expense of the Hampshire County Library. In 1926, the auxiliary assisted the Legion in designing an honor roll plaque for the World War I servicemen of Hampshire County.

Post No. 137 has an active membership of 400 in Capon Bridge, WV. Post Commander Bob Brasher is assisted by President Sally Reid and Larry LaFollette, head of the Sons of the Legion group.

Each of these organizations provides a venue for fellowship, volunteerism, and patriotism. The service each member has given to their Nation and community shall be forever cherished and represented.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the London Post Office in London, WV. Despite 15 postmasters and three different buildings it remains a center of activity for the community.

The first location for the post office was in a building near the railroad tracks, and it was later housed in a general store that burned down in 1989. The current post office now sits on the same piece of land as the two previous ones. This landmark has become an anchor of the community for social gatherings and town news.

Chip Frame is the current postmaster and has worked there for 9 years. Even with an hour commute, the family atmosphere and friendly community make it worth the drive for him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding West Virginian, Kevin Estep, from Apple Grove, West Virginia. A volunteer with the National Service Agency, Kevin is the recipient of the 2006 Learn and Serve America Spirit of Service Award.

Kevin received his honor at the 2006 National Conference on Community Volunteering and National Service, which was held in Seattle, Washington, because of his service with HI-Y, a YMCA-affiliated leadership organization.

He has volunteered as a camp counselor, helped 7-to-12-year-old, low- income, at-risk boys and girls at the Governor's Youth Opportunity Camps at the YMCA Camp Horseshoe. He encourages children to read, try new things, build skills, and set goals for a better life.

A leader in his school, Kevin is an honor student with a 3.9 GPA, a member of the school band, and has two part-time jobs. As a graduate of Point Pleasant High School, he plans to attend Marshall University in Huntington in the fall. Kevin is a leader in his community at a young age, and he is a role model for his peers and younger West Virginians.

I commend him on his service to his community, State, Nation, and fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 906 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last night, the Rules Committee granted a structured rule for H.R. 2990, the Credit Agency Duopoly Relief Act of 2006. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule also provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It also provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, making all germane amendments that were offered in the Committee on Rules in order.

The underlying legislation is an important, commonsense approach to providing greater transparency for credit rating agencies. Who can forget the scandals following the bankruptcies of Enron and WorldCom? Even more shocking is the fact that both corporations were given investment grade ratings by credit rating agencies just before their financial collapse. This misrepresentation resulted in the loss of millions of dollars for investors.

The root of the problem lies with the current process of recognizing statistical rating organizations by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The current process stifles competition and fosters an environment that has led to two rating agencies holding 80 percent of the market share.

A level playing field is needed so smaller companies with expertise in specific areas can enter the market. H.R. 2990 clearly lays out the registration requirements for rating agencies replacing the current opaque designation process by the SEC. By injecting the current system with competition and greater transparency, the quality of ratings will be enhanced.

This act will also provide greater investor protection, including provisions requiring rating agencies to be in the business of issuing credit ratings for at least 3 years prior to filing an application for registration as a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization, ensuring better quality assessments for investors.

Mr. Speaker, the economy is booming due in part to greater participation by investors in the various markets. Greater transparency, accountability and competition among credit ratings agencies will provide investors with better information and encourage future investment. The underlying legislation is a step in the right direction towards ensuring this success.

Finally, this legislation will improve the quality of information provided to investors. It is no secret that a little competition improves quality and expands services offered. Armed with more reliable and accurate credit ratings, investors will continue to drive the economy and foster a more innovative environment.

I would like to remind all Members that the rule makes in order all germane amendments presented to the Committee on Rules.

I urge all Members to support this fair rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that the vote that we

are discussing is the rule on the duopoly bill, which will increase the number of credit rating agencies so that we can have more transparency, more accountability, so that not only investors will be protected, but also those folks who work for those businesses who have 401(k)s who have their savings invested in the company that they work for.

This will provide for them better protections, better transparency, and better accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that the bill before us today is a bill that I think would help go a long way towards bringing more transparency and accountability to credit rating agencies. They agree with the principles behind the bill, which would avert and help the working people of America to make not only better investment decisions, but to know that the company that they are working for and entrusting their savings with is going to have a fair and balanced look at their books.

We have no disagreement in terms of the rule. We have two different approaches to this, and I think we would really be well served to keep the debate looking towards how we can best protect those working people under the realm of the bill that we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to Mr. Baker of Louisiana, a champion of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is nothing more than an exercise because the minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be ruled out of order as nongermane. So the vote is without substance.

The previous question vote itself is a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever.

At this point in the Record, Mr. Speaker, I insert an explanation of the previous question.

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part

that:

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the one hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the underlying legislation is an important step towards improving transparency in the credit rating industry and the quality of information provided by the agencies. The industries receiving credit ratings are wide-ranging, from information technology, healthcare, manufacturing, financial services, and the list goes on.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that many, many workers in America and investors in America are heavily reliant on the full health of the companies that they work for and invest in, all up and down the economic ladder. Allowing smaller industry specific credit rating agencies to enter the market will improve the information provided to investors.

We cannot forget those workers of Enron and WorldCom who were saving for colleges, saving for retirement, and basically left penniless. With the ever-increasing importance placed on these ratings by investors, it is important that clear requirements for registration of credit rating agencies be created, and this legislation is a giant step towards that goal.

I would like to remind my colleagues that this fair rule makes in order all germane amendments that were presented to the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.