Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work on this bill. I also thank the Chairman for incorporating my amendment into the manager's amendment and for giving me time to speak.

My amendment to H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act would afford D.H.S. workers the right to voluntarily don and access personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks, the N-95 respirator, gloves and hand sanitizer without fear of reprisal.

Given the reluctance on the part of D.H.S. to address the voluntary use of personal protective equipment amidst the H1N1 flu outbreak, as Chair of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, it has fallen on my shoulders to ensure the health and safety of Federal employees-- especially frontline Federal workers at D.H.S. who are tasked with the tremendous job of keeping the American public safe.

In my opinion it is unconscionable that our workers have been repeatedly denied the use of these protective items--and even threatened with disciplinary action for attempting to protect themselves from a communicable disease that has resulted in the World Health Organization, WHO, declaring its highest pandemic alert possible--Phase Six. Further, it is alarming that D.H.S. has been unable--or unwilling--to issue and to distribute comprehensive, written guidance on the voluntary usage of PPE to its own employees during a public health emergency.

Federal workers such as Transportation Security Officers, TSOS, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Officers and Border Patrol Agents, and ICE Agents who work in high risk areas and come in contact with thousands of individuals per shift deserve better. C.B.P. Officers working at the Laredo, Texas port of entry and the Otay Mesa port of entry in San Diego, CA, can screen over 5,000 individuals per shift and have been routinely threatened for asking to wear masks. The nineteen-month-old baby of an ICE agent in Miami, Florida, who works at the Krome Immigration Service Processing Center which has six confirmed H1N1 flu cases, has been diagnosed with the H1N1 virus. I simply cannot fathom why these workers are not being supported, but I am committed to ensuring that common-sense policies are implemented at D.H.S.

It is essential that Federal agencies implement adequate and uniform worker protection policies for the employees who protect the Nation as part of their daily duties. These are the very employees who will be called upon to respond in the event of an emergency. Without such policies, not only is the health of front line employees being put at risk, but the health of their families and the general welfare of the public is also placed at risk. In short, the Federal Government cannot ably respond to emergencies if the very personnel needed as part of that response are themselves compromised.

I thank Chairmen Price and Thompson for their support of this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an outstanding soldier and my good friend, Maj. Michael S. Avey, whose exemplary and dedicated service as a Congressional Liaison Officer in support of the United States House of Representatives stands as a testament to the honor and excellence of the United States Army.

A native of Redford, Michigan, Maj. Avey joined the United States Army House Liaison Division in January of 2008, following the completion of his one-year post as a Staff Action Officer with the United States Army Joint Staff. Maj. Avey's prior military experience also includes distinguished service in Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of Stabilization Force 8 and deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, during which he commanded the A/2-327th Infantry Regiment with distinction. In recognition of his distinguished service, Maj. Avey has received several military awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, two Army Meritorious Service Medals, the Ranger Tab, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

For the past year and a half, Maj. Avey has provided exemplary and indispensable service to Members of Congress and staff as a Congressional Liaison Officer for the United States Army. In addition to assisting our offices on all matters relating to United States Army practice and policy, Maj. Avey has played an instrumental role in the design, development, and execution of Congressional Delegations, through which Members of Congress are afforded the invaluable opportunity to conduct firsthand oversight of areas of legislative concern.

Since joining the Army House Liaison Division, Maj. Avey has served as my primary military liaison and escort officer on several Congressional Delegations, including site visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the Gaza Strip. Accordingly, I have had ample opportunity to witness the excellence, professionalism, and pride with which Maj. Avey conducts his work and in particular, the extent of his admirable commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Members and staff. In addition, I have also had the great privilege to come to know Maj. Avey on a personal level and can genuinely say that his character never fails to reflect the loyalty, honor, and distinction that have come to define his service in the United States Army.

Madam Speaker, Maj. Michael S. Avey stands as the personification of the United States Army's motto, ``Army Strong.'' On behalf of the entire United States House of Representatives, I would like to express my deepest and sincerest gratitude to Maj. Avey for his exemplary and dedicated service and wish him, his wife, Margaret, his son, Brendan, and his daughter, Kate, the best of luck on all of their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2325) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``Laredo Veterans Post Office''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

I now yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present for consideration H.R. 2325, which is legislation to designate the United States postal facility located at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, as the Laredo Veterans Post Office. Introduced by my colleague Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas on May 7, 2009, and reported out of the Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on June 4, 2009, H.R. 2325 enjoys the support of the entire Texas House congressional delegation. As evidenced by the short title of the bill, the legislation before us seeks to pay tribute to all the brave men and women from the city of Laredo, Texas, as well as the State of Texas and across the United States who have served our Nation in the United States military both at home and abroad. Over 23 million American military veterans are currently living in the United States, including nearly 2 million veterans living in the State of Texas alone. These fine Americans as well as those that are no longer with us have devoted their lives to the defense and security of our Nation, notwithstanding the great personal risk and sacrifice they must endure. We are eternally in their debt and forever grateful for their noble and selfless dedication to our Nation and the preservation of its founding principles.

Madam Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.

Cuellar) for being the lead sponsor of this legislation and offering such a thoughtful and considerate measure in honor of his constituents. With that, let us also pay tribute to the distinguished service of our veterans from the city of Laredo, from the State of Texas and across the Nation by designating the Laredo Post Office in their honor. I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative Cuellar in supporting H.R. 2325.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the lead sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Madam Speaker, I just urge our colleagues to join with Congressman Cuellar in naming this post office in memory and in honor of our United States and Texas veterans.

With that, I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2422) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 702 East University Avenue in Georgetown, Texas, as the ``Kyle G. West Post Office Building'', as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, as chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service, I am pleased to present H.R. 2422, as amended, for consideration this afternoon.

The bill before us will designate the United States postal facility located at 702 East University Avenue in Georgetown, Texas, as the ``Kyle G. West Post Office Building.'' Introduced by our colleague Representative John Carter of Texas on May 14, 2009, and reported out of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 4th, 2009, by unanimous consent, H.R. 2422 enjoys the support of the entire Texas House delegation.

A resident of Hutto, Texas, First Lieutenant Kyle G. West bravely served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with the United States Army's 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, out of Fort Hood, Texas.

On Memorial Day, May 28, 2007, First Lieutenant West and four fellow members of his unit were killed in Abu Sayda, Iraq, when their Bradley Fighting Vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device. The soldiers had been out on a rescue mission in support of comrades who had been downed in a helicopter.

After graduating in 2001 from Hutto High School in Texas, First Lieutenant West attended Blinn College and subsequently received a degree in business management from Stephen F. Austin State University in 2005.

In pursuit of his lifelong dream to serve in the United States military, First Lieutenant West joined the ROTC program at Stephen F. Austin as a junior, and eventually rose to sergeant in the Texas National Guard out of Lufkin, Texas. Included among Kyle's National Guard duties were assisting in the Columbia shuttle recovery efforts in 2003, as well as serving in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. Kyle was commissioned into the United States Army as a second lieutenant on the eve of his college graduation ceremony and subsequently deployed to Iraq on October 3, 2006.

In addition to his dedication to his unit and his country, Kyle is equally remembered for his devotion to his family and to his friends. As recalled in a May 31, 2007, article in the Austin American- Statesman, Kyle was a devoted son, a protective big brother, and a loyal friend who is still known in his old neighborhood for rounding up friends to take care of a local grackle problem while all the adults were at work.

Mr. Speaker, First Lieutenant Kyle West's life stands as a testament to the bravery and devotion of the heroic men and women who have served and continue to serve our Nation at home and abroad. It is my sincere hope that we can honor this young soldier through the passage of H.R. 2422 and rename the Georgetown, Texas, postal facility as

the Lieutenant Kyle G. West Post Office Building. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just join with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for the purpose of supporting this measure which will honor First Lieutenant Kile West.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2470) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, as the ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I stand for the consideration of H.R. 2470, legislation that designates the United States Postal Service facility located at 19190 Cochran Boulevard, FRNT, in Port Charlotte, Florida, as the ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building''.

Introduced by Representative Thomas J. Rooney on May 18, 2009, and reported out of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on June 4, 2009, by unanimous consent, H.R. 2470 enjoys the support of Florida's entire House congressional delegation.

A longtime resident of Punta Gorda, Florida, Lieutenant Commander Roy Boehm served with distinction in the United States Navy for over 30 years. Lieutenant Commander Boehm enlisted in the United States Navy in April of 1941 at the age of 17. His subsequent and remarkable Navy career included service in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and resulted in his receipt of nearly 30 military awards, including the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star with Valor Device and the Meritorious Service Medal.

Notably, Lieutenant Commander Boehm's extensive combat experience over the course of three wars led him to determine that highly specialized and diverse training would give his men a significant tactical advantage in the conduct of unconventional warfare. Accordingly, in 1960, Lieutenant Commander Boehm began developing, designing and assembling an elite special operations unit within the United States Navy that would later become known as the Navy SEALs. In fact, Commander Boehm was the first officer in charge of the Navy SEAL team, which is why he became known as the first United States Navy

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this. I continue to reserve our time.

I thank the gentleman from California for his words in support of this measure.

I also want to thank Congressman Rooney for being the lead sponsor here, the gentleman from Florida.

In closing, I again urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Lieutenant Commander Roy Boehm for his good work through the passage of

I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk that has been

made in order by the rule. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I begin, Madam Chair, I would like to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Berman for considering my amendment. I congratulate the committee for drafting a bill that, I think, will truly strengthen our Foreign Affairs profile overseas as well as strengthen our capabilities.

I rise in support of my amendment, which will direct the State Department to assess and to report to Congress on the Special Immigrant Visa Program for certain Iraqi and Afghan nationals employed by or on behalf of the United States in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.

As a member of the House Oversight Committee and as a member of its National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, I've been to Iraq and to Afghanistan on numerous occasions. I've had the pleasure of meeting with some of the brave Iraqi and Afghan workers who actually serve right beside our own men and women in uniform as interpreters, as assistants in military operations and also in the civil operations that are going on in both of those countries. It is extremely dangerous work, and they do deserve incredible recognition for taking a very difficult position in aiding our troops in their mission. They are deserving of our admiration.

There is a sad truth, however, that, in choosing to support U.S. forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan to rebuild their countries, they are also putting their lives on the line and those of their families. The insurgents in Iraq and in Afghanistan have targeted these hardworking patriots and their families in the hopes of terrorizing the local people and in discouraging cooperation.

It is because of this very real danger that Congress created the sections 1059 and 1244 Special Immigrant Visa Programs. They allow for certain Iraqis and Afghans who actually serve as translators--these are the folks who are actually protecting our young men and women in uniform as translators or as interpreters or who are otherwise employed by the U.S. or its contractors--to come to the United States to escape the targeting by these terrorists and insurgents.

I am aware that the State Department prepared a study of these programs in July 2008, but I believe it is necessary, actually, to follow up on this previous study in light of the troubling reports that I received earlier this year. I was informed by our State Department folks in Iraq and in Afghanistan and I was informed by General Ray Odierno, the commander of the United States forces in Iraq, that they are still dealing with unclear eligibility requirements, that they're having difficulty processing these Iraqis with visas and that they're facing long processing times, which has worked to the detriment of these individuals and has also hampered our effort to recruit others to take their places.

With wait times up to a year, these applicants are in constant danger while their applications are sorted out. I think we owe it to these brave men and women, who are doing the right thing, to ensure that any delays are only as long as is absolutely necessary.

Through this study, we will be able to determine the root causes of these difficulties. Then, based on the findings, Congress can act to ensure that these programs are run efficiently and effectively while protecting the applicants' lives, our national security and our men and women in uniform.

I urge my colleagues to support both this amendment and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chair, at this point, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 356) expressing support for the designation of February 8, 2010, as ``Boy Scouts of America Day'', in celebration of the Nation's largest youth scouting organization's 100th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks

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

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to present House Resolution 356 for consideration. This legislation expresses our support for the designation of February 8, 2010, as ``Boy Scouts of America Day'' in recognition of the youth organization's upcoming 100th anniversary.

House Resolution 356 was introduced by my colleague Representative Ralph Hall of Texas, on April 23, 2009, and favorably reported out of the Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on May 6, 2009. Additionally, House Resolution 356 enjoys the support of over 70 Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Chicago publisher William Dixon Boyce on February 8, 1910, with President William Howard Taft named to serve as the organization's first honorary president. Pursuant to its stated purpose, the newly founded Boy Scouts of America sought to educate America's youth in ``patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred values'' through a variety of educational, civic, and recreational programs and activities. By the year 1912, every State in America could claim a troop of Scouts. And in 1916, the organization received a Federal charter from the 62nd Congress.

Since its incorporation in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America has now witnessed the enrollment of over 111 million Scouts, with Scouting currently found in 185 countries around the world. Former Scouts and Scout volunteers include a number of prominent Americans, including Presidents John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Gerald Ford. President Ford often described the impact of Scouting on his career, stating that, ``Without hesitation, because of Scouting principles, I know I was a better athlete, I was a better naval officer, I was a better Congressman, and I was a better-prepared President.''

In 2008 alone, the Boy Scouts of America provided educational community service and recreational programs to over 2.8 million young people, with the support of over 1.1 million volunteers and nearly 130,000 community-based organizations. As noted by the Boy Scouts of America's most recent Annual Report to the Nation, two events in 2008 exemplified the promise and the value of Scouting.

Firstly, throughout the course of 5 weeks in the summer of 2008, approximately 3,600 Scouts and volunteers, in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service, participated in Arrow Corps Five, a project designated to benefit our national forests. The program resulted in the completion of more than $5.6 million worth of national forest improvements.

Additionally, June 11 of 2008 witnessed the destruction of Iowa's Little Sioux Scout Ranch by a devastating tornado which, sadly, resulted in the deaths of four Scouts and injuries to 48 other Scouts and staff. In response, groups of Scouts and volunteers promptly set up a triage system, provided first aid to the injured, and began digging victims from the rubble of the collapsed campsite. Just one day earlier, these brave Scouts, who were attending a weeklong leadership training session at the camp, had taken part in a mock emergency drill.

Notably, February 8 of next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America, and fittingly, House Resolution 356 expresses our support for the designation of that date as ``Boy Scouts of America Day.''

Madam Speaker, let us commemorate the 100 years of civic and educational service provided by the Boy Scouts of America through the adoption of House Resolution 356 and by expressing our support for the designation of February 8, 2010, as ``Boy Scouts of America Day.''

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, but I will continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with Mr. Hall of Texas in bringing forth this important resolution, and I ask all Members to support unanimously the resolution at hand.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 435) celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House Resolution 435, which expresses support for the recognition and celebration of Asian Pacific American heritage. The measure before us was introduced on May 13, 2009, by Congressman Mike Honda of California, along with other Members and associate Members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Currently, the measure is supported by over 55 Members of Congress and has been appropriately reviewed and approved by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as of June 4, 2009.

Madam Speaker, the Asian American and Pacific Islander community is composed of over 15 million people who, on a daily basis, are making significant contributions to the betterment of our country. For example, in addition to being one of our country's fastest growing minority groups, the Asian American and Pacific Islander community is also responsible for generating an estimated $326 billion annually for our economy as entrepreneurs and business owners of over 1.1 million businesses.

While Asian Pacific American heritage is certainly worth recognizing and celebrating year-round, the country and the Asian Pacific American community have traditionally come together in the month of May to celebrate and commemorate Asian and Pacific American heritage. That all began back in 1977 when Representatives Frank Horton and Norman Mineta and Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga introduced resolutions asking the President to declare the first 10 days of May as Asian Pacific Heritage Week.

The selection of the month of May stems from the fact that May marks the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants in the U.S. in 1843. In 1978, President Carter made Asian Pacific Heritage Week an annual event, and in 1990, President George H. W. Bush proclaimed the entire month of May to be Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Madam Speaker, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have also made great strides in the area of civil rights and public policy, led by such notable Americans as Patsy Mink, the first Asian American Congresswoman, not to mention the current members of the President's Cabinet, which includes three Asian Americans: Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki.

In closing, let us, as a body, take a moment to recognize the valued contributions of the Asian and Pacific American community and celebrate such a rich cultural heritage by supporting House Resolution 435.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 420) celebrating the symbol of the United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 420 celebrates our Nation's most enduring symbol: the American flag. With this resolution, this Chamber expresses its support for the annual recognition of Flag Day.

The gentleman from Ohio, Representative Robert Latta, introduced House Resolution 420 on May 17, 2009, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported it out on June 4, 2009, by unanimous consent. With 64 cosponsors, it is a clear demonstration of Congress' appreciation and respect for our Nation's flag.

We celebrate Flag Day on June 14, the anniversary of the Continental Congress' passage of the first Flag Act in 1777. Since then, Americans have looked to the flag as a symbol of their country and its dearest values. The flag represents us and all of our fellow citizens, and I am always heartened to see the parades and events that occur around the country each year in commemoration of Flag Day, especially in one of my favorite towns, the town of Dedham, Massachusetts, which has a wonderful parade each year on Flag Day. And in the town of Dedham around Flag Day, it is hard to find a home without the American flag hanging on the front door.

The flag honors the countless men and women who have died during the defense of the United States in the Armed Forces. In short, the American flag is a lasting symbol of their sacrifice. As public servants, we rightly pledge our allegiance to the flag each day, as do the millions of Americans for whom we represent and serve here in this Chamber. While each day of the year the American flag stands before the entire world as a symbol of our shared values, hopes, aspirations, and ideals, I am glad to see that we set aside the time each June to celebrate the American flag and all that it represents.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I again urge our colleagues to join Mr. Latta, the lead sponsor of this resolution, in affirming our allegiance to our flag and our support for the annual celebration of Flag Day by supporting this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 885) to elevate the Inspector General of certain Federal entities to an Inspector General appointed pursuant to section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 885, the Improved Financial and Commodity Markets Oversight and Accountability Act. This bill, introduced by my friend Representative John Larson of Connecticut, would enhance the independence of Inspectors General at key financial regulatory agencies.

Right now we have an inconsistent system where some financial agencies like the FDIC have an Inspector General appointed by the President and

confirmed by the Senate, while other large and important agencies like the SEC have an Inspector General who is appointed by and reports to the head of the agency they are supposed to be investigating.

This bill would create a more consistent and independent structure by elevating the Inspectors General at five financial regulatory agencies to be Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. This will enhance their independence from the agencies they are overseeing.

This committee has worked on Inspector General reform for the past several years now, and one of our key findings is that the Inspectors General have to be independent from the agency they are supervising if they are going to be effective. The situation at some agencies, where the head of the agency hires and fires the Inspector General and sets the office budget for that Inspector General, does not give these IGs, the Inspectors General, the independence they need.

Making the Inspector General a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate not only gives them independence from their agency management but also gives them more stature to come directly to Congress with any problems that they encounter.

Congresswoman Diane Watson, the chairwoman of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, held a hearing on this bill where it had the support of the GAO. At the hearing, the agency Inspectors General made some suggestions on improving the bill, which has been incorporated in an amendment adopted at the committee markup. The amendment specifically clarifies that the Inspector General and the Inspector General staff retain their existing pay and personnel structure. It also clarifies and strengthens the subpoena authority of these Inspectors General, and it requires the heads of the agencies to report to Congress on actions they have taken in response to Inspector General recommendations.

Inspectors General have the unique responsibility of reporting both to the President and to Congress. Congress has to make sure that the Inspectors General have the legal authority and tools they need to continue their roles as nonpartisan, professional, honest brokers; and this bill, I believe, does that.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 885.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for his hard work on this bill and his ongoing commitment, and it has been that case on much of the legislation that comes before our committee for his bipartisanship and willingness to work very hard on these issues. I consider it an honor to work with him.

I would like to submit for the Record an exchange of letters between the Honorable Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and the Honorable Edolphus Towns, chairman of our Oversight Committee, with respect to their concerns regarding this bill.

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, June 8, 2009.

Hon. Edolphus Towns,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Towns: I write to you regarding H.R. 885, the

Improved Financial and Commodity Markets Oversight and

Accountability Act.

H.R. 885 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. I recognize and

appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the

House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not

seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, agreeing to

waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as

the Committee on Agriculture waiving its jurisdiction over

Madam Speaker, in closing, we would like to reiterate our strong support for H.R. 885 and its lead sponsor and champion, Mr. Larson. Again, we appreciate the great work being done by Ed Towns, the full committee Chair; Mr. Issa, its ranking member; and the gentleman from Utah, because this will increase the independence of these Inspectors General at financial regulatory agencies at a time when we need these internal watchdogs to be more effective than ever. We do appreciate the work that is being done by our Inspectors General and their staff, investigators and researchers. They work very hard for us. They do work that is not often appreciated, I think, on behalf of the American people; and this will, I think, allow them a greater level of independence to do the job that needs to be done. So I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Larson and all of us in supporting the passage of this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Thompson, the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, for his great work on this bill. Specifically, this amendment that I have offered would address a difficult situation that is faced by our transit security officers, especially those on the Mexican border, but in every port of entry in the United States.

We have about 50,000 of these officers that actually come in contact, physically wanding and screening travelers. As you may remember, after the outbreak of the H1N1 virus, the epicenter was actually in Mexico City; yet the officers that we put on the border, especially Laredo, Texas, and other affected States, were not allowed--they were not allowed to wear masks, to wear gloves, or to use hand sanitizer as they proceeded to screen travelers coming through from Mexico.

A bizarre situation developed where our officers actually were able to look across at the Mexican security officers who all had masks on, they all had gloves on, yet our own TSA did not allow our workers to wear masks or gloves.

In fact, when our officers actually took the initiative to protect themselves, they were told by their superiors, Take off those gloves. Take off those masks. You're alarming the traveling public.

Many of these officers actually screen up to 2,000-3,000 visitors, travelers, per shift. So, to a high degree, they were actually exposed to people who were exhibiting influenza. There are a couple of stark instances we received on the committee, affidavits from officers who actually confronted travelers who were visibly sick. Yet they were told, even in those instances, they were not allowed to wear gloves and masks. So what this amendment would do would be to direct the Transportation Security Administration to basically issue guidance that would allow these workers to protect themselves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the odd situation we have here. We have the World Health Organization that has actually brought us up to a level 5. They are now considering going to a level 6 on this influenza. Yet you have the Transportation Security Administration and DHS saying they did not think it was medically necessary for our folks to wear these. You have the Centers for Disease Control here in the United States, in Atlanta, alerting Americans just generally to cover their mouths, to avoid unnecessary travel to Mexico, to take prudent steps to protect themselves. Yet we have these officers on the border who are screening 3,000 people per day, and they aren't allowing these individuals to wear masks.

I think it points out a terrible incongruity in our policy. We've been trying to get them to change that policy. They would not do it voluntarily, so we have been put in a position where we have to do this legislatively.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

I will reserve my time at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out something that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) just raised.

On several occasions, there have been justifications for not allowing people to wear masks and for not allowing these screeners to protect themselves on the border. The justification seems to be that the airlines and transportation officials don't want to alarm the public. I just want to point out that, when you travel around the globe, these are not large, evil-looking devices. These are very simple dust masks that can be used, and they look fairly common. You see them a lot overseas. It's quite a common thing. As they become more widely used, it will sort of, I think, become commonplace, and it will not bring alarm.

The last point I want to make is this: these employees don't have the right to collectively bargain. They don't have the right to send in a representative to file a grievance when they're told to take off their masks or gloves or when they refuse to allow them to use Purell or anything to protect themselves. If these folks had had a collective bargaining representative, they wouldn't have had to come to me. I feel like I'm the business manager for the Transportation employees. While I'm honored to have that responsibility, I think it would be much better handled if they had the right to collectively bargain and if they had the right to have their own employee representatives intervene on their behalf when their own personal safety and the safety of their families are threatened.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, which was introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, on January 22, 2009.

As chairman of the subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of Columbia, I'm proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this bill, along with 55 other Members of Congress.

H.R. 626 takes an important step toward improving the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce by providing paid parental leave to Federal and Congressional employees for the birth, adoption or placement of a child for foster care, which is a benefit that is extended to many in the private sector as well as to all government employees in other industrialized countries.

In considering H.R. 626, the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia marked up the bill on March 25, 2009, and favorably recommended the measure to the full Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The full committee then held markup on H.R. 626 on May 6, 2009, and ordered the bill to be reported to the floor by a voice vote.

The bill being considered today will allow all Federal and congressional employees to receive 4 weeks of paid leave taken under the Family Medical Leave Act, also called the FMLA, for

the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child.

As many of my colleagues are aware, the current FMLA statute provides workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child with an employee. Madam Chairman, the bill before us does nothing more than permit those Federal employees, first, to receive paid leave for 4 weeks out of the 12 weeks to which they already have access and if the leave is connected to the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child; and secondly, provides employees the option to use accrued sick or annual leave, if available, for the remaining 8 weeks.

Let us be clear. The bill currently being considered does not provide Federal workers any additional time or expand beyond the 12 weeks already given under current law.

The bill before us has also been strengthened by granting the director of the Office of Personnel Management the authority to increase paid parental leave from 4 weeks to 8 weeks after considering a thorough cost and benefit analysis.

Parental leave is a pertinent concern around the world, and unfortunately, America is lagging behind in offering paid leave for parents. The governments of 168 countries offer guaranteed paid leave to their female employees in connection with childbirth. Ninety-eight of these countries offer 14 or more weeks paid leave. Currently, the Federal Government, as an employer, guarantees zero paid leave for parents in any segment of the workforce. However, H.R. 626, once enacted, will, in fact, change that.

While the 12 weeks of unpaid leave, as authorized by the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, has helped millions of families during some of the most precious moments or, in some cases, the most challenging times of their lives, most Federal employees cannot afford to take unpaid leave. This often forces these employees to choose between spending more time with their newborn child or maintaining an income to support their families, which is a difficult decision that Federal workers will hopefully not have to make after the passage of this Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

The United States of America, and in particular, the Federal Government, is supposed to be a world leader in this area. Yet, for years, we have been followers. I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that it is high time for us to catch up with the rest of world and provide our dedicated employees with paid parental leave of this limited time.

Providing Federal employees with paid parental leave will increase worker morale and improve productivity by creating a more family friendly environment for Federal employees. Further, providing 20 days, or 4 work weeks, of paid leave to our dedicated Federal employees should not be described as an overgenerous or excessive fringe benefit, but rather, as a necessary benefit to help strengthen American families and promote the healthy development of our children.

We also need to recognize that the Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States, and its policies in this area do set a tone for the country. No employee should have to choose between caring for a newborn child or their paycheck. This is especially true during an economic downturn.

Therefore, Madam Chairman, I'd like to once again reiterate my support for H.R. 626, the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this measure.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I just want to address a single point that's been made by a number of the speakers on the other side who I have great respect for, the gentleman from Texas earlier and now the gentleman from California.

There is a drumbeat of justification that seems to be grounded in the fact that the economy is not in good shape right now, and that's a fact in my State, in my district, as well as all across America. But before we accept the argument that this is why it's being opposed, this bill is being opposed at this time, I just want to give a little brief history.

This bill has been presented for 15 years. This bill has been presented for 15 years before this body. In 2008, when a majority of the Republicans opposed this important benefit, the unemployment then was 5.6 percent, pretty good.

During the 109th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this bill to the floor, the unemployment rate was never higher than 5.4 percent. During the 108th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate ranged between 5.4 and 6 percent, relatively low.

During the 107th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this legislation to the floor again, the unemployment rate never rose above 6 percent, and was below 4.5 percent for most of the year. During the 106th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate never rose above 4.4 percent.

So there's a whole history here of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposing this bill, during good times and average times, and now in lousy times. But that is not the underlying reason that they're opposing the bill. The evidence does not support that.

At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the lead sponsor of this bill, who has been there for the entire 15 years fighting for this measure, our chairwoman from the 14th District, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the full chairman of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of our newest but most energetic and dynamic members of the subcommittee (Mr. Connolly) from the 11th District of Virginia.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California's Sixth District (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Representative from Maryland's Fourth District, Donna Edwards.

I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I just want to clarify.

The way this has been scored by CBO is that the salaries are paid to the employees already. The cost and/or savings recognized in the CBO estimate that has been cited here reflect the fact that by forcing Federal employees to take leave without pay, they realize a savings from that. But there is no new debt acquired here.

What the savings here that CBO is recognizing is the fact that they have budgeted for these salaries but then people take a certain amount of time off without pay, and that realizes a gain in the budget that's recognized in the CBO estimate.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I am prepared to close, so I reserve at this time.

Madam Chair, this bill is narrowly tailored to specific circumstances. It would provide 4 weeks of paid parental leave. The specific instances are the birth of a new child, an adoption, or someone taking a child into foster care. That's how you qualify for receiving these 4 weeks of benefits. And I think that this makes a strategic investment in the Federal workforce.

This will help the government retain and attract young talented employees; and in so doing, it provides potentially an ultimate savings to the American people since there's a direct benefit when the government retains existing employees rather than having to hire and retrain new ones. We are all familiar with the revolving door in the Federal Government, where we bring in people, we train them, they become very competent in their areas of expertise, and then private industry steals them away because they can offer them much greater benefits and much, much higher pay. This provides a basic and decent benefit of 4 weeks for the occasions that I mentioned.

Before closing, I'd like to also point out that the Obama administration, in their recently issued statement of administration policy on H.R. 626, also recognized the benefits of supporting families during the birth of a child, adoption of a child or for foster care. According to the President's policy position, the Federal Government should reflect its commitment to helping Federal employees care for their families as well as serve the public. Measures such as H.R. 626 support this commitment and strengthen our families, our communities and our Nation. Given that statement alone, I urge my fellow Members to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 626.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I absolutely cannot support the amendment at hand, as it totally goes against the bill's fundamental purpose. To begin, this amendment actually guts the bill. It does little more than restate the status quo with regard to the type and amount of leave that is currently available to new parents in the Federal Government.

To be clear, I support H.R. 626 because I want to support working families across the country. I oppose the amendment because we should not replicate the current inadequate system that forces new moms and dads to choose between their paycheck and caring for a newborn. The gentleman's amendment, however well intended, would strike the bill's core requirement that Federal employees receive 4 weeks of paid parental leave. Instead, it would require new mothers and fathers to take advance leave in order to take care of their newborn or newly adopted child. In other words, new employees would be required to go into debt in their available leave as a cost of caring for their child.

I do want to point out an odd result of the gentleman's amendment. For the new employees who have unpaid leave right now, it would force them to take unpaid leave at a point in time--for instance, for a new mom right after she has the baby, it would force her to take unpaid leave; and then later on after the 8 or 12 weeks had expired, at a point maybe when that mom was ready to come back to work, it would then give those employees, mom and dad, 4 weeks of paid leave. So rather than come back to work, they'd be facing the opportunity to take paid leave at that point; and I think in some cases it may turn out that this may increase the cost. While it actually devalues the benefit to the employee up front, it also, by perhaps getting a higher utilization rate, in the end may cost the government more money. So it's sort of a lose-lose situation. Longer-term employees would be required to exhaust any available prior leave before being eligible to take the additional advance leave; and under most circumstances, they may already do this.

So the amendment's only alleged new benefit to employees is to allow newer hires to go into a deficit on their leave in order to get some days paid during their parental leave. But, again, Federal agencies can already offer employees advance leave, so there's really no new benefit here. The true effect of this amendment is to gut the primary purpose of the bill, which is to support families and child development by providing 4 weeks of unconditional paid leave to new mothers and fathers in the Federal workforce.

In addition to gutting the bill, the amendment is inequitable because it would impact new employees and older employees differently. Moreover, the amendment is not good policy because employees should not be forced to use up all of their accrued annual sick leave to care for a new child. This can leave employees in a desperate situation if any emergency arises or if they become seriously ill down the road.

This amendment is somewhat short-sighted. It ignores the strategic investment that H.R. 626 makes in the Federal workforce at a time that we need to be attracting young talented employees to prepare for a wave of upcoming retirements. Currently we have about 315,000 Federal employees that are eligible to retire; and unfortunately those are the most experienced and, in some cases, the most ablest employees that we have in the Federal Government.

This amendment ignores the social benefits to society as a whole that result from supporting families with progressive work-life policies, such as a paid parental leave program. Because this amendment guts the pending legislation, I do have to oppose it for all the reasons that I have stated in spite of the gentleman's good intentions. I ask that Members continue to support the bill and oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close and continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, for the purpose of closing, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who, along with Congressman Hoyer, has championed this bill for the past 15 years.

I want to thank the gentleman for his thoughtful and prudent amendment, and we are prepared to accept it at this time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I also thank the gentleman from Alabama for his thoughtful amendment. This amendment makes certain that Federal employees who are members of the National Guard or Reserve will remain eligible for this benefit and be able to care for their newborn children in the same manner as all other employees. I thank the gentleman for his astute observations and his clarification.

I urge the Members to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit for the basic reason that it guts the entire bill. If this amendment were to pass, we would leave Federal employees exactly where we find them today.

I also want to comment on the mechanics of the motion to recommit. It basically prohibits paying parental leave to Federal employees until the deficit is below $500 billion. I view it, I guess, that somehow that is the justification for not extending these benefits.

However, history and the evidence before us does not support this position. It's disingenuous.

I just want to point out a couple of things. Briefly, I just want to lay out what the record is here. My friends from the other side of the aisle have been consistent, and I give them credit for that. Whether we have been projecting a surplus or a deficit, the Members from the Republican Party have been opposed to this parental leave under every circumstance that we could possibly face here.

When during the Clinton administration we had projected surpluses, the Republican Members opposed parental leave. In June of 2008 when the majority of the Republicans opposed this important benefit, the unemployment rate was only 5.6 percent, and we had a very strong economy.

During the 109th Congress when Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate was never higher than 5.4 percent.

During the 108th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring parental leave to the floor, the unemployment rate was averaging about 5.8 percent.

During the 107th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate never rose above 6 percent and was below 4.5 percent for most of 2001.

And again, during the 106th Congress when Republicans refused to bring legislation to the floor for parental leave, the unemployment rate hovered around 4 percent, which most economists believe is near full employment.

So, regardless of the circumstances, my friends--and again, I commend you for your consistency--you have opposed parental leave, which is a basic and decent benefit for folks in three circumstances: When they have the birth of a child, Federal employees have a birth of a child; the adoption of a child; or taking a child in for foster care.

Those are the narrow set of circumstances that this benefit is applied to. Madam Speaker, this is the 15th year--15 years ago this bill was brought to this floor, and it's been opposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle for that 15 years, and we all know our positions, and with that, I ask the Members to support this measure.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1817) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, as the ``John S. Wilder Post Office Building''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, as chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service, I am pleased to present H.R. 1817 for consideration. This legislation will designate the United States postal facility located at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, as the ``John S. Wilder Post Office Building.''

Introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn on March 31, 2009 and reported out of the Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on May 6, 2009, H.R. 1817 enjoys the support of the entire Tennessee delegation.

A longtime resident of Somerville, Tennessee, John Shelton Wilder admirably devoted over 40 years of his life to public service, including over 30 years as the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Tennessee.

Born on June 3, 1921 in Fayette County, John Wilder attended the University of Tennessee College of Agriculture and subsequently received his juris doctor at the Memphis State University Law School. A distinguished United States Army veteran of World War II, Mr. Wilder also served as a member of the Fayette County Quarterly Court, known also as the county commission, for 18 years.

In 1958, Mr. Wilder was first elected to the Tennessee State Senate as a Democrat representing senate district 26, which included Chester, Crockett, Fayette, Hardin, McNairy, and Wayne Counties. While he did not run for reelection in 1960, Mr. Wilder returned to the State senate in 1966.

Following the adoption of a State constitutional amendment that extended the length of terms in the State senate in Tennessee to 4 years, Mr. Wilder was elected to his first 4-year term in 1968 and was subsequently re-elected to nine consecutive terms until his retirement in March of 2008.

In 1971, Mr. Wilder's senate colleagues elected him speaker of the State senate, a position that under the State constitution also granted him the title of Lieutenant Governor. And notably Mr. Wilder became the first Tennessee Lieutenant Governor in almost 50 years to serve under a Governor of a different political party, Republican Winfield Dunn.

While the Tennessee General Assembly had not traditionally maintained its own staff or its own offices prior to Mr. Wilder's tenure, State senate Speaker Wilder undertook a variety of efforts to enhance the State legislature's standing, including the construction of General Assembly offices.

Mr. Wilder also made a unique mark by retaining the lieutenant governorship of Tennessee for over 30 years. Notably, the State had not previously seen an individual serve more than three consecutive terms as speaker of the State senate since 1870. In contrast to other elected officials in his position, Mr. Wilder never sought higher office. And he often stated that ``the speaker likes being speaker.'' In fact, Mr. Wilder's service as Lieutenant Governor from 1971 until 2007 is regarded as one of the longest Lieutenant Governor tenures in United States history.

During his simultaneous service as Lieutenant Governor and as State senate speaker, Mr. Wilder was widely admired for his unrivaled and genuine commitment to bipartisanship. Mr. Wilder routinely awarded chairmanships to both Democratic and Republican members. And in 1987, Mr. Wilder, a Democrat, even earned the Republican Caucus's nomination for Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Wilder's commitment to bipartisanship, for the benefit of the citizens of Tennessee, was further evidenced by his retirement announcement in March of 2008. In that address, Mr. Wilder encouraged his colleagues to ``be statesmen, to do what is good and right for this State of Tennessee and leave partisan politics out of it.'' Mr. Wilder further noted the destructive nature of partisan politics and emphasized that the success of the State of Tennessee greatly depended on legislators voting their conscience, absent the influence of partisan politics.

Madam Speaker, let us honor this dedicated public servant, John Shelton Wilder, through the passage of this legislation to designate the Somerville, Tennessee, post office in his honor. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1817.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Ninth District of Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I don't believe we have any further speakers at this time, but I will continue to reserve our time.

Madam Speaker, I do want to bring this discussion back to the point at hand and this bill that seeks to honor Governor Wilder. And I would hope that, in taking the moment to dedicate this post office--and I chair this committee, and we do name a lot of post offices here. As a matter of fact, I think sometimes we'll run out of names before we run out of post offices. But I do think that this is one that is so well deserved because of the wonderful career of bipartisanship, and it disappoints me greatly that people would take away the focus of this dedication to harp on a bunch of hot air about some other issues that are going to have plenty of time to be debated.

This is a moment that we have to honor this gentleman, Governor Wilder, for his wonderful accomplishment, and in all the testimony here given this morning by his closest friends and his strongest advocates, he is one of the most bipartisan leaders that we have had in this country, and he has held that position as Lieutenant Governor for over 30 years. So I want to make sure that he gets the recognition that he deserves.

I want to congratulate Mrs. Blackburn for being the lead sponsor of this, and Mr. Cohen and all of the House Members, both Republican and Democrat, on behalf of the Tennessee delegation for the wonderful work that they've done.

And I ask all of my colleagues to join with us in giving due honor to Governor Wilder by naming this post office in Somerville, Tennessee, in his name.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2090) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New York, as the ``Frederic Remington Post Office Building''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present H.R. 2090 for consideration. This legislation will designate the United States postal facility located at

431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New York, as the Frederic Remington Post Office Building introduced on April 23, 2009, by the Republican vice chair of my subcommittee--and the recently nominated Secretary of Army--Mr. McHugh of New York. H.R. 2090 was reported out of the Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on May 6, 2009. I'm also pleased to report that this legislation enjoys strong support from the New York House delegation.

A long-time resident of the City of Ogdensburg in St. Lawrence County, New York, Frederic Remington was a renowned 19th century painter, illustrator, sculptor and writer who specialized--and I think in many people's minds really captured the essence and legend of the American West.

Born on October 4, 1861, in Canton, New York, Frederic Sackrider Remington moved to Ogdensburg, New York, in 1873 and attended the Yale College School of Art before soon heeding the call to go west.

Remington's early travels through America's new frontier in the late 1800s provided him with the unique opportunity to observe scenes that he had imagined since his childhood and gained an authentic view on America's west that would later translate into his unparalleled and inspirational depictions of frontier life.

Harper's Weekly published Remington's first commercial illustration in 1882 and Remington soon began to receive a steady flow of commissioned work from additional publications, including Collier's, that were searching for authenticity in Western themes. Remington's first full cover appeared in Harper's in 1886 when he was only 25 years old. And in 1887, Remington received a highly regarded commission for 83 illustrations for a book by Theodore Roosevelt entitled ``Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail.'' This latter assignment provided a significant boost to Remington's career and marked the beginning of a lifelong bond between the artist and Roosevelt.

Despite his success as a magazine and book illustrator, Remington was focused on further developing his artistic abilities; and in the mid- 1880s and 1890s, he turned his attention to water and full-color oil painting as well as sculpture. In order to retain the authenticity of his work, Remington embarked on annual trips to the West and even created a Western environment in his New York studio by surrounding himself with objects collected from his various travels.

In noted paintings, such as the ``Return of the Blackfoot War Party'' and ``Mule Train Crossing the Sierras,'' and ``A Dash For the Timber,'' Remington continued to evidence a unique ability to handle complex compositions and realistically capture the sweeping landscapes, heroic figures and moments of danger and conflicts which came to epitomize the American West. In 1888, Remington even achieved the honor of having two of his paintings used for reproduction on United States postal stamps.

In the mid-1890s, Remington quickly mastered a new medium and became immersed in sculpture. Similar to his previous illustrations and paintings, well-known Remington bronzes such as ``The Broncho Buster'' and ``The Cheyenne'' were highly regarded for their detail, movement, energy, and overall realism. Notably, Remington's piece ``The Broncho Buster,'' was presented to Theodore Roosevelt following the Rough Riders' return from the Spanish-American War, an honor that Remington deemed the ``greatest compliment I ever had.''

Regrettably, Frederic Remington died on December 26, 1909, at the young age of 48 and at the height of his profession. Nevertheless, he was able to produce over 3,000 drawings and paintings, 22 bronze sculptures, over 100 articles and stories, and even a novel and a Broadway play over the course of a career that inspired the American imagination and immortalized the Western experience.

Madam Speaker, let us honor the great 19th century artist, Mr. Frederic Remington, through the passage of this legislation to designate the Ogdensburg post office in his honor. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2090.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers at this moment. I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, again, I would like to bring the discussion back to the matter at hand which is the dedication of this post office in Ogdensburg, New York, in memory of Frederic Remington.

I think it's especially notable that people would take away from the honor that's trying to be bestowed here by a Republican colleague and, you know, a nominee for Secretary of the Army. Mr. McHugh asked that we take a moment and designate this post office in memory of one of New York's most renowned citizens and someone who has provided great service to this country in his artistic work in capturing an era of our country that is enormously important to all of us.

And I know a lot of people out there must be very confused. What does the French use of nuclear power have to do with the post office being named on behalf of Frederic Remington? And there is no connection.

There is no connection. There is a denigration going on here, a discourtesy, I think, to Mr. McHugh, a discourtesy to the people of New York by the Republican Party, and taking this moment of recognition away from Mr. Remington and his memory, away from Mr. McHugh and the object of his legislation, to spout on about issues that can be spouted on about at different times and more appropriate times. We do not have to have either discussion of one issue at the cost of reducing the respect and courtesy that are due to Members and particular initiatives that they put forward that they deem important to their districts and to the people that they represent.

I will not do that. I will not go on about cap-and-trade. I will wait for the debate on cap-and-trade. I will not go on about whether I think the French are doing the right thing with nuclear power and the disposal of their waste. I'll wait on that. There will be appropriate times to discuss that.

What we're here about today in this bill is recognizing Frederic Remington for what he provided for in this country in his brief time on this Earth and in a way that is consistent with the wishes of the sponsor of this legislation, the Republican gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) who deserves our respect.

And with that, I urge all my Members to join with Congressman McHugh, the nominee for the Secretary of the Army, a good choice in my opinion, and support this measure unanimously.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2173) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, Maine, as the ``Carl B. Smith Post Office''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present H.R. 2173 for consideration. This legislation will designate the United States postal facility located at 1009 Crystal Roads in Island Falls, Maine, as the ``Carl B. Smith Post Office.''

This bill, introduced by my colleague and friend, Representative Mike Michaud of Maine, on April 29, 2009, was reported out of the Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on May 6, 2009, and enjoys the support of both members of Maine's House delegation.

A lifelong resident of the town of Island Falls, Maine, Carl B. Smith dedicated over half of his life to public service and local and State government, the United States military, and the United States Postal Service.

Born on March 30, 1922, Carl B. Smith graduated from Sherman High School in 1940 and 2 years later joined the United States Army Corps. Representative Smith's subsequent 10-year tenure in the United States Army included service in Europe during World War II, as well as service in Japan and Korea during the Korean conflict. He would go on to become a lifelong member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7529 out of Island Falls as well.

Following his discharge from the service, Representative Smith attended barber school and proceeded to serve his beloved community of Island Falls as a barber for 30 years. In addition, he also worked as a rural letter carrier with the United States Postal Service and, of course, was a proud member of the Maine Rural Letter Carriers Union.

Representative Smith would subsequently embark on a distinguished career in local and State government.

First, he served as the town clerk of Island Falls for 13 years and later served on the Island Falls Board of Selectmen.

In 1980, Mr. Smith was elected to the Maine State Legislature as the representative serving house district 140, which includes Island Falls, Ludlow, Oakfield, Sherman, and other areas. His admirable career in the Maine House of Representatives would span 10 years, during which time he was a member of the State's Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Agriculture, and State and Local Government.

Throughout his tenure in the Maine State House, Mr. Smith was widely noted for his efforts on behalf of environmental causes, as well as his devotion to social issues such as poverty, health, and aging.

In 1987, Mr. Smith received statewide recognition when he was selected by House Speaker John L. Martin to serve on the Maine Commission on Outdoor Recreation. Upon announcing Representative Smith's appointment to the commission, Speaker Martin described Smith as an ``extremely hardworking legislator who has devoted a great amount of time and energy to environmental issues.''

Regrettably, Carl B. Smith passed away on October 4, 2000, at the age of 78.

Madam Speaker, let us honor this dedicated public servant through the passage of this legislation to designate the Island Falls post office in Carl B. Smith's honor.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2173.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from northern Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to rebut the fallacy that the other side of the aisle needs to step on a bill that Mr. McHugh put forward to recognize someone from his district because we're naming a post office for that individual; or the gentleman from Tennessee who was honored, Governor Wilder, 30 years served as Lieutenant Governor of that State.

The other side argues that there's a lack of opportunity to talk about these other issues so they have to use the time that was designated to honor these people--a very brief amount of time, by the way. Normally, just a few minutes on each side, we get rid of these bills. They have extended the time we have spent on this floor.

But I just want to take today's schedule. Today's schedule, we have hearings all over the Capitol. We have 14 hearings in the Senate; some of those dealing with cap-and-trade. We have 18 hearings where Members of Congress will stand behind microphones just like this one and expound of their views on issues everywhere from agriculture to appropriations to energy and commerce, which is the subject matter that the other side would like to talk about.

There are ample opportunities for people in Congress to talk and talk and talk. Matter of fact, it reminds me of that movie, ``Charlie Wilson's War.'' Charlie Wilson's secretary, who was not familiar with the workings of Congress, turned to the Congressman and said, Charlie, why do Members of Congress talk and talk and talk and talk and never do anything? And Charlie turned to her and he said, Well, honey, mostly it's tradition. And that's what's going on here.

I have great respect for the ranking member, the gentleman from Utah, who came up and talked about the bill that was on the floor, talked about its merits. And Carl B. Smith; this is a post office being named after a gentleman who worked as a rural letter carrier.

Now you may laugh down your nose at that, but we seem to think that's honorable service to our country. Just because this guy was a letter carrier is no reason for Members on the other side of the aisle to denigrate his service, to denigrate the honor that's being bestowed upon him.

This man worked his entire life. He was a veteran. He was a letter carrier. This is the backbone of America. He was a proud union member. He dedicated his life. He was a good American. He put on the uniform of this country. Served in the Army. What about his service? What about his service?

Instead, we get a bunch of . . . standing up here spouting about stuff that you can talk in any single committee hearing on this schedule.

I withdraw my comments. I apologize. I apologize on the word ``blowhard.'' I retract that. I retract that.

Instead, we have Members----

I ask to strike.

That was overreaching on my part.

Instead of giving those gentlemen--the gentleman from Tennessee, who served 30 years, Carl Smith, 30 years as an elected official and a postal servicemember, and Frederic Remington--giving them their due time on this floor, the brief moment that they have, probably the highest moment of achievement for certainly Mr. Smith in Maine--and, by the way, the sponsor of that resolution, Mike Michaud, is actually chairing a subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs so he can't be here. So he has relied upon us to extend the basic courtesy to someone in his district who dedicated their lives to this country.

He was a man of a common position; just a rural letter carrier--like a lot of folks in this country, from a small town--and we're trying to name a post office after him.

Mr. Michaud sent this bill over while he is in committee dealing with veterans' affairs and debating those issues and asked us to handle this. I just think some of us have handled that responsibility poorly. That's what I think. That's my opinion.

And I just wish that even though you may look down your nose at this, you may not think that this is important at all, it's very important for these families and for these individuals to be honored.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the gentleman's remarks. I understand the pressures put on the schedule, but I do know there is enormous opportunity for Congress. Never in the history of this country have we had more outlets and more opportunity to get our message out.

Last night, I know that our side took an hour just to talk about cap- and-trade. I know that your side does the same thing. There are a lot of opportunities and a lot of forums in this building and elsewhere on Capitol Hill to speak about them. We have a lot of issues. We have a lot of issues that confront us today, and there are many, many, many opportunities to express our opinions. I just think that this is one little slice of time that we have put aside for a significant purpose. It may be a narrow purpose in recognizing certain individuals, but I think that it should be dedicated and spent on that purpose without intervening subject matter denigrating that recognition and that honor that is so well deserved.

With that, I welcome the gentleman's remarks. Again, if it were not clear before, I apologize for my earlier remarks. The descriptions were inappropriate, and I do apologize for those remarks. Again, I ask that they be stricken from the Record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, with that and on behalf of the gentleman who is the lead sponsor of this resolution, Mike Michaud from Maine, in honor of Carl B. Smith, we ask that this resolution be supported unanimously by the Members of Congress in recognition of a good, good American.

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