Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress from Ohio, I am proud of my state's diversity and the many cultures that make it such a great place to live.

One of the more active ethnic groups in Ohio is the Ahiska Turks, who are represented by the Ahiska Turkish American Community Center (ATACC). When the United States offered P-2 refugee status to this distinct minority group in Russia, to those who faced religious and ethnic persecution by the Russians, roughly 12,000 Ahiska Turks came to our country, and settled in Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Idaho, Pennsylvania, New York, Oregon, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

Those who created new lives in Ohio learned English, established small businesses, educated their children, and revitalized neighborhoods. They invested over $30 million just in north Dayton alone, where dilapidated houses were transformed into an oasis of middle class dwellings. For example, the Dayton Community Center was a dying building which they bought and renovated. It now not only houses Ahiska Turkish American Community Center events, but it is also a flourishing neighborhood preschool.

Ahiska Turks are living the American dream not only in my state, but also around the country. In their efforts to open shops, and establish businesses in transportation and construction, for example, they have successfully accomplished what we often talk about here in Congress-- they have created jobs.

But while these fortunate Ahiska Turks now live better and more prosperous lives here in the U.S., the lives of the Ahiska Turks in Russia are very different. Their children are segregated in schools and told they can never

``catch up'' or integrate with their Russian counterparts. They continue to face widespread persecution and live under discriminatory laws. However, if these same people thrive once they come to the United States, and their children excel in school, then there is little doubt that the environment of hostility and discrimination in which they live in Russia is what is keeping them from meeting their real potential in that country.

As a result, I call on the State Department to restart the P-2 program so that those Ahiska Turks who continue to face persecution in Russia can come to the United States and rejoin their families. Ohio has benefited from their hard work, dedication, and family values. This program was a blessing for these wonderful people, and it was a good deal for the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of a legendary Ohio political figure, a great father and a tremendous role model, William Mallory, Sr., whom I had the honor to know and call a friend.

Bill Mallory's life is a true American success story. He rose from working-class roots to become the first African American to serve as majority floor leader in the Ohio House of Representatives, a position he held longer than any lawmaker in Ohio history.

During his 28-year tenure in the Ohio House, Bill Mallory, a former teacher, championed education issues and helped create Ohio's first statewide drug prevention program.

But perhaps his most enduring legacy is his family's dedication to public service and community involvement. Of Bill Mallory's five sons, one is an elections administrator at the Hamilton County Board of Elections, two are Hamilton County municipal court judges, another is an Ohio State Representative, and the fifth is the outgoing two-term mayor of Cincinnati.

Mr. Speaker, William Mallory, Sr., will long be remembered for his devotion to his family, to his community, and to the State of Ohio.

Madam Chair, I want to recognize and appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for pushing this bill forward. It is very important for our country.

Our patent system is complex, and in our litigious society, it is unfortunate that some bad actors are using that complexity to take advantage of our small businesses. Young, innovative companies are increasingly threatened and targeted by patent troll lawsuits, and the majority of companies targeted by patent trolls have less than $10 million in revenue. They target these small companies because the companies typically don't have the resources to fight back. So small businesses have a choice: Do they settle with a patent troll or do they go out of business and people lose jobs? That is the choice that small businesses and start-ups are forced to make--pay off a patent troll or shut their doors.

The Innovation Act levels the playing field for small businesses and start-ups. It brings transparency to the patent process and helps protect one of our founding constitutional principles: protect property and promote innovation.

These trolls do not create products. They do not create jobs. They create headaches, and at a significant cost to our economy. It was $80 billion in 2011 alone--$80 billion.

It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. This bill provides sunlight that effectively sanitizes the shadowy abuse of patent litigation. Madam Chair, the Innovation Act is a good first step in protecting our small businesses and entrepreneurs from this type of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 417.

Mr. Speaker, the Americans we are discussing today did nothing wrong. They purchased insurance before any Federal mandate ordered them to. Now they are losing their insurance.

Katie Rupert is a constituent of mine. At 33, she was diagnosed with breast cancer, a sickness that later spread to her brain. She started radiation and travels to Houston to see her oncology specialist. Today, she is a Stage IV cancer survivor and doing well, but she knows that this will not last forever.

Katie had good coverage through her husband's workplace but is losing it because of ObamaCare. What is worse, she has been told that her doctors are not covered by her options on the ObamaCare exchanges. She is a wife, a mother, an inspiration, and now she is another example of this law's collateral damage. That is the impact of ObamaCare.

We can do better. We have to do better. We owe Katie and others like her at least that much.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 1961, legislation that my colleagues and I introduced to save the Delta Queen steamboat. And I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Missouri--St. Louis, in particular--my Democratic colleague, Lacy Clay, for his leadership on this particular issue.

This legislation is basically one line. It doesn't cost a penny, and it has two very important functions. It preserves an important piece of American history, and it supports American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1961 reinstates the Delta Queen's grandfathered status--not an earmark--the grandfathered status from a law that prohibits wooden boats--which the superstructure of the Delta Queen is. The hull of it is steel--for carrying overnight passengers. The Delta Queen is actually capable of carrying up to 176 passengers comfortably overnight; and under the law as it currently exists, 50 is the cutoff point.

Congress granted the Delta Queen a reprieve from this law for the last 40 years. So for 40 years, the United States Congress granted this exemption. It did so because she was constructed before the law was in place and because the law was intended for boats at sea, not riverboats--boats, oceangoing vessels at sea. It was never intended for river-faring boats like the Delta Queen. That's why the Congress granted this exemption for 40 years. The Queen's grandfathered status was uninterrupted for 40 years until management concerns stalled the continuation back in 2008.

Since Congress revoked its ability to operate, the boat has been chained to a dock. Discord and disagreement won that day; but today, hopefully, it will be different.

Today we have a renewed coalition of support. Democrats and Republicans have worked together on this issue. It passed by voice vote with no votes against it in the Transportation Committee; and maybe most importantly, the boat's new management and union are working together to return this vessel and the jobs she provides to full operation.

So this is a situation where management and the union are not fighting. They may have been back in 2008. They're not now. They're together on this. They're both requesting that we pass this particular legislation today so that the Delta Queen can once again ply the rivers--the Mississippi, the Ohio--and bring jobs to communities all up and down those rivers.

With all the gridlock in Washington, this bill is a welcome show of bipartisanship for a change. I wish we had more of that around this place. But this really is a bipartisan bill. It's supported by the Seafarers International Union, by the American Maritime Officers, and by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, for example. It's cosponsored by a diverse list of Republicans and Democrats, including the entire Ohio delegation, including my colleague--and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue--Brad Wenstrup from the Second District, right next to my district, the First District, in the greater Cincinnati area. He has been a leader on this, as has Congressman Massie across the river. And as I mentioned before, Congressman Lacy Clay from Missouri and many other Members.

It also has the support of Transportation Committee Chairman Shuster on the Republican side and Ranking Member Rahall. And I would like to read a quote from the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, who was unable to be here today. Actually, I think he is driving here and will be here for votes, but couldn't make the debate. But this is what he said back in the Transportation Committee itself, and I am quoting here from his testimony:

``I'm in favor of preserving an icon of our American heritage, the Delta Queen. In light of the support that this bill has from the Seafarers''--the Seafarers Union--``and the fact that this means good- paying jobs and that a unique part of Americana would be restored to service, I support the pending legislation.''

That's the bill that we are dealing with here today. And in the past, this effort was even cosponsored by two men who rarely see eye to eye, Senator Mitch McConnell and then-Senator Barack Obama. Both of them supported this back in 2008.

I owe thanks to every lawmaker who cosponsored this measure. And I owe a special thanks, as I mentioned, to the gentleman from St. Louis, Missouri (Mr. Clay), without whose help this wouldn't be possible today.

To my colleagues who have raised issues about the vessel's safety, I hear you. Safety must always be a top priority. So let's discuss it for a minute.

This vessel is equipped with a fully automated environmental detection system that uses over 300 sensors to detect heat, smoke, and CO2, for example. It also has a state-of-the-art sprinkler system, a Coast Guard-trained and -certified firefighting crew, and round-the-clock watchmen patrolling the vessel 24 hours a day.

It should also be noted that the original legislation from 1965--and I mentioned this before--was intended for oceangoing vessels. That's why it was called the Safety at Seas Act, not the Safety on the Rivers Act. As a river vessel, the Delta Queen is never more than a mile from shore and can be landed and evacuated in minutes, if need be. Fortunately, that's never been necessary with the Delta Queen in its 80 years, basically, in traveling, and 60 years on the rivers of the Mississippi and Ohio.

So oceangoing vessels. We are talking about vessels that oftentimes are hundreds of miles, perhaps even over 1,000 miles, from land. In this case, we're talking about never more than one mile. That's why the Delta Queen is different. It was the only river vessel that this really applied to because of its size and the fact that it could take more than 50 passengers. That was the problem.

And to clear any misunderstanding, the legislation does not relieve the boat managers of their responsibility to deal with safety issues. In order to obtain a certificate of inspection, a COI, from the Coast Guard, the vessel will have to address United States Coast Guard concerns.

The managers already have a detailed list of things they know will need to be upgraded, which include replacing the vessel's boilers, in all likelihood, and steam lines with modern, fully automated, welded construction boilers and steam lines.

So the issues that were concerns back in 2008, which my distinguished colleague mentioned before, these are all going to be taken care of, and should be. Otherwise, we wouldn't be supportive of this bill.

This bill does not issue a green light. This bill unlocks the private resources necessary to make this multi-million-dollar restoration effort possible. At the end of the day, if the boat doesn't satisfy the Coast Guard, they don't get a COI, and they don't sail. They don't paddle. They don't move. They don't travel at all.

While objections on the grounds of safety are reasonable, I feel that safety may be a convenient argument, really, not a justified argument.

Let me close, at this point, by saying that the Delta Queen is beloved by many, particularly many Cincinnatians, who spent years watching her sail into our city to unload passengers at dawn and head out back with a new group of people at dusk. I think many of us would like to give her that opportunity up and down the Mississippi and

the Ohio. Again, it means jobs for many people in many of these communities.

I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill for two principal reasons, jobs and American history. Members can support this by voting in favor of H.R. 1961.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'll be very brief.

Mr. Speaker, relative to the Coast Guard's issues, their principal issue is the boilers. We all know that. We've always known that. The new owners are going to replace the boilers.

The Coast Guard has to approve this. If the Coast Guard has any opposition, all they have to do is not issue the certificate to operate the boat, and it won't operate. So the Coast Guard has to be completely satisfied before it safely goes out.

Relative to sprinklers, it has a state-of-the-art sprinkler system. So the safety issues, I think, are red herrings really.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with certainly some of the comments of my colleague from California. Safety is paramount. It's paramount to us, just as it is to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle both in support and in opposition of this legislation, and it is also to the unions and to the merchants and a whole range of people. The Coast Guard will ultimately determine whether it's safe or not. It cannot get a certificate to ply the waters of the Ohio or Mississippi unless the United States Coast Guard determines that it's safe. We agree on that.

Is the Delta Queen safe?

Well, the Delta Queen has operated safely for more than 80 years. In all that time, there's never been a fire that required any passenger evacuation--not one in over an 80-year period of time.

As a riverboat, the Delta Queen, as I mentioned before, is never more than a mile away. This was the Safety at Seas Act, as our colleague from Kentucky mentioned, that we're talking about. This legislation was supposed to apply to oceangoing vessels at sea, not the rivers. The Coast Guard more broadly brought in the rivers. And that's why Congress said, Look, we don't mean this to apply to rivers. So if it applies to any boats, any ships here on the rivers, then we're going to give them an exemption. There was only one boat it applied to that was big enough to have over 50 passengers. That was the Delta Queen, because it has a steel hull and steel paddles in the back and a wooden superstructure.

We have given this exemption for 40 years. From 1968 through 2008--40 years--Congress gave the exemption because we considered it to be safe. Now, it's going to be certified by the Coast Guard that it's safe before it ever goes anywhere. The Delta Queen will still be required, as I said, to get a certificate from the Coast Guard in order to move.

Now, let me read from a couple of those groups. We've heard from Members of Congress here. This is the Seafarers International Union, who had been opposed to this back in 2008 and who is now solidly supportive. Here's what the Seafarers Union said:

We write to express our support for H.R. 1961. This

legislation would effectively permit the Delta Queen

steamboat to return to operation as a river-faring vessel.

While there is still much restorative work ahead before the

boat can return to full operation, securing the congressional

waiver is the first and most critical step in that path.

That's what this is all about: the restorative work--the new boilers, the new steam pipes. We are talking probably $10 million worth of restoration. But in order for anybody to put money into that, to make the ship better, to make it safe, etc., it needs this exemption in order to allow the private sector to get the money into the boat so that it can actually continue on the history that we've seen for many years in this country on this particular boat.

Let me continue with the letter:

This particular vessel has been a source of jobs for many

merchant mariners over its tenure as an overnight cruise

vessel, and it can be again. Unfortunately, absent the

congressional waiver afforded by this legislation, these jobs

will forever be lost.

That's what the Seafarers International Union said. The American Maritime Officers said:

``This legislation will help create the circumstances for the Delta Queen to return to operation as a river-faring vessel. The owners of this vessel understand they will need to make investments to improve the ship before she receives first approval from the Coast Guard to begin operating in regular service again. Passing H.R. 1961 will give those parties the assurance they require to undertake those efforts''-- to spend the $10 million on the boat. ``Bringing the Delta Queen back in operation status is a worthy effort. It

will help create jobs through work that needs to be done.''

These maritime officers wouldn't want to be sailing on a dangerous boat.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today as a strong supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 2449, legislation to extend for 2 additional years the existing U.S.-South Korea civilian nuclear energy agreement.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, it's my strong belief that passage of this legislation is in the national interest of the United States and also in the vital interest of the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

Earlier this year, we held a hearing in our subcommittee to examine the facts behind the current nuclear energy agreement with South Korea and why it needs to be extended. Simply put, the agreement with South Korea strengthens America's nonproliferation priorities, it helps to create American jobs in the energy sector, and it's an important symbol of our long friendship with South Korea.

I want to commend my colleague from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the full committee, and also the ranking member of the committee from New York, Eliot Engel, for introducing this bipartisan legislation.

America's friendship with South Korea is stronger today than probably at any other moment in our history. Forged on the cold, dark battlefields of the Korean war, this year's 60th anniversary of the U.S.-South Korea alliance marks a significant milestone in our ever- growing relationship. There is no doubt it has indeed become the cornerstone of peace and security in East Asia. In fact, it is the enduring, relevant, and forward-looking qualities of our alliance that makes today's consideration of this bill, H.R. 2449, so important.

Today in South Korea, a once war-torn nation has become a world-class economy and leader in high-tech innovation. Its commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in a region where these ideals are oftentimes hard to come by is a testament to the trust we have in our ally and friend, South Korea.

I once again thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for putting this particular legislation together. I would like to join them in urging my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring renewed attention to the ongoing difficulties taking place on the island of Cyprus.

This decades-long struggle to find common ground for an agreement between the two people on the island--Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots--has frustrated many in the United States and the international community. Cyprus occupies an important geo-political, economic and strategic region for the United States.

As a member of the European Union, the island of Cyprus remains divided. This is in spite of the Turkish Cypriots approving 3 to 1, and the Greek Cypriots defeating by a similar margin, the United Nations Peace Plan of 2004--which foresaw a comprehensive settlement to the decades-old dispute through a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation based on the political equality of both sides. Instead of a fair and prosperous agreement for both sides, the Turkish Cypriots remain isolated from the international community.

Almost ten years have elapsed. And leaders on both sides of the island offer promising hope for serious and substantial talks to take place. Although previous talks were outlined with difficulties, and a major push for peace failed in 2004, we must not let this deter our- will to resolve an issue that is so important to American interests.

An agreement will take political courage from both sides. But the United States should do--everything it can--to support both sides in this process. The Eastern Mediterranean is a region of key strategic importance to U.S. interests, and a settlement in Cyprus with active

American involvement and contribution will no doubt set a long-deserved example of peaceful relations and economic cooperation.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) for his leadership in cosponsoring this particular amendment with me.

We introduced this amendment because, with a nearly $17 trillion debt, the Federal Government can no longer continue to subsidize wasteful programs and policies. The programs that this amendment would eliminate--some of them in my own State--do little to achieve their intended purpose of economic development. These are wasteful programs that the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and even the Obama administration have found to be duplicative and possessing no track record of success.

In his 2012 budget, President Obama eliminated Federal funding for the Denali Commission, for example. His argument, which I agree with, was that the Denali projects are not funded through a free market or a merit-based system. Additionally, the White House noted that there are 29 other Federal programs capable of fulfilling this commission's mandate. I would submit that this is also the case for a number of other commissions--for example, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, the Northern Border Regional Commission, and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission--for which we reduced and eliminated the funding.

Of particular note and concern is a recent report from the Denali Commission inspector general, which states that $100 million is missing from the Denali Commission bank accounts. In his 2012 semiannual report to Congress, the inspector general recounted his attempts to track down the lost funds--unsuccessfully, I might add--and recommended that Congress not reauthorize the commission in light of this mismanagement.

Like Citizens Against Government Waste, I seek to end the Federal appropriations for this commission as well as for the others that I mentioned. By reducing the appropriations to these programs, my amendment would save $90 million for American taxpayers.

GAO analysis found numerous Federal programs that overlap and provide similar services. In these reports, GAO found no fewer than 80 Federal economic development programs administered by four different agencies. Year after year we hear about the inefficiency and waste that is occurring within these programs. This inefficiency, duplication and overlap have cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the years.

These commissions were established for one purpose: economic development. Yet the CBO and other organizations have found no factual evidence that these commissions have created jobs or have improved education or health care. The inability to determine the success of these commissions is, in part, due to their overlap with other programs and agencies.

In summary, there is a tremendous amount of duplication and overlap in each one of the programs that I mentioned, so they are better dealt with at the State and local levels. The officials there are much closer to these types of programs than is the Federal Government. The programs have no track record of success in doing what they were intended to do, which is to create economic development and job growth. It just hasn't happened. The GAO report, as I indicated, has stated that the programs are duplicative and that there is a tremendous amount of mismanagement.

Taxpayers are fed up with wasteful spending in Washington. It's time we identified wasteful programs. These are truly almost the definition of ``wasteful programs,'' and we need to cut them. I would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is simple: hardworking taxpayers should not have to subsidize the world's most successful companies and trade groups for their business and advertising overseas, yet that's exactly what the Market Access Program does. Every year, the Federal Government takes millions from taxpayers and hands it to multimillion-dollar corporations. These funds end up financing lavish international travel and marketing expenses for corporations that could most certainly afford to do it themselves. In my view, this is corporate cronyism for the well-connected, and with a $17 trillion debt, almost, it's time to end this misuse of tax dollars.

Just a few of the more egregious examples of waste include a taxpayer-funded Japanese Tweet While You Eat campaign to promote U.S. beef; an animated series in Spain promoting walnuts that chronicles the adventures of a squirrel named Super Twiggy and his nemesis the Colesterator; educational wine tastings in London, Denmark, Dublin, and Mexico; American whiskey tastings in Hong Kong; an elaborate outdoor dinner party in New Delhi, India, so that food critics could discuss prunes.

The list goes on and on, and the trend is disturbing. Billion-dollar- industries are padding their bottom line with American tax dollars. They ought to do these things, but they ought to do them on their own dime, not on the backs of the American taxpayers.

Take, for example, Blue Diamond Almonds, which despite their billion- dollar year in 2012, still received $3.3 million from the Market Access Program.

Or the U.S. Meat Export Federation which received $19 million from MAP last year, even though the value of pork and beef exports was at the highest level in history.

Or Sunkist Growers, Inc., which recorded its third consecutive billion-dollar year, but still received $2.2 million from American taxpayers.

So we have billion-dollar enterprises and million-dollar recipients of aid from the American taxpayer.

The bottom line is Congress should not spend hard-earned tax dollars this way. Republicans don't believe in it; Democrats don't believe in it. So let's stop doing it. Don't get me wrong, these businesses ought to be doing this. They ought to be advertising their own products, but they shouldn't do it on the backs of the American taxpayers. For the sake of the taxpayers, who are earning the money that we're spending here, I urge passage of this amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I introduced this amendment to reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP program, and specifically the electronic benefit transfer account program within the SNAP or within the food stamp program.

The SNAP, or food stamp program, is in dire need of reform, and I think most people realize that and many have spoken out about that already. Under the current administration, the Obama administration, the number of people on food stamps has increased by 16.5 million persons. In 2011, the SNAP program handed out $84 billion in food stamps in 1 year alone. The SNAP program is now the second most expensive--after Medicaid--program, and it is the fastest growing of all the Federal Government's 80 welfare programs. This cost is unsustainable. Reforms can be made without impacting, in my belief, those who truly need assistance; and there are some who truly need assistance, and we ought to help them.

Under current law, unused benefits are rolled over each month and can pile up for an entire year. The current law is terribly flawed and encourages fraud and abuse. My amendment would increase the integrity of the program by ending the rollover and recouping leftover benefits. Instead of allowing benefits to remain unused in an account for an entire year, my amendment would return unused SNAP or unused food stamp money or benefits to the U.S. Treasury after 60 days, 2 months, which I believe is a reasonable period of time.

Those actually using the benefits or those truly in need would not be impacted. The intent of SNAP, or food stamps, is to assist those in need on an as-needed basis. If a recipient hasn't utilized all their benefits, those benefits could be used to help others who do need them or used to reduce our almost $17 trillion national debt.

Clearly, this is a program in need of reform. My amendment addresses the out-of-control growth we have witnessed with this program over the past 4 years, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would also note that almost 80 percent of the farm bill--we're spending about a trillion dollars overall--goes to the food stamp program. So we're talking about a very significant part of the overall farm bill.

The GAO notes in a report:

It's inconclusive regarding whether SNAP, or food stamps,

alleviates hunger and malnutrition in low-income households.

Think about that. It's inconclusive whether it actually reduces hunger or malnutrition. And the people that it's supposed to be helping, which is low-income households, if that's the case, why are we spending all these dollars? This doesn't go to the entire food stamp program, obviously; it just goes to a certain item, and that is reducing from a year, allowing those dollars to pile up, to a reasonable time, which is 2 months.

I would also note that the GAO report goes on to say that the amount of SNAP money paid in error is substantial, totaling in the billions of dollars.

So it's clearly something that should be reformed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, according to last week's jobs report, nearly 12 million Americans--12 million of our fellow citizens--are out of work. That's simply unacceptable.

The American people deserve better than a constant parade of job- destroying regulations coming out of Washington. They deserve better than a government that continues to spend us further into debt.

The American people deserve solutions that will create jobs today, and that's what the House Republican plan is all about. We have a plan to grow our economy and secure the future for all Americans, to expand opportunity, not government.

We want to rein in massive government spending and reform the Tax Code to make it simpler and fairer for all Americans. That's the House Republican plan. It's one of growth, prosperity, and unlimited opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, May 18th marks the 4th anniversary of the end of a brutal 26 year civil war in Sri Lanka--a war which claimed tens of thousands of lives and cost the Sri Lankan economy billions of dollars.

Four years later, many in Sri Lanka still suffer from the lingering effects of that war. Many have not been able to return to their homes. Land mines are still being cleared, and minority Tamils have yet to be fully integrated into local affairs.

It is my hope, and the hope of most Sri Lankans, I believe, that political reconciliation can finally come to Sri Lanka and that the battle-scarred nation can enter a new era where former combatants live in harmony. But that reconciliation can only come if a legitimate mechanism for reconciliation and accountability is established. True reconciliation, Mr. Speaker, will come not from government edict but from the establishment of an equal justice system with full respect for the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, it's with a heavy heart that I rise today to mourn the loss of a dear friend, Mrs. Barbara Willke of Cincinnati, Ohio. She, along with her husband, Dr. Jack Willke, cofounded Cincinnati Right to Life. She died peacefully at the age of 90 this past Sunday and leaves behind her husband, 6 children, 20 grandchildren, and several foster children.

During the early years of the national debate on abortion, she recognized the injustice of abortion on demand and held steadfastly to her belief that life is a gift from God.

I first met Barb and her husband, Jack, nearly 35 years ago and have worked closely with them to protect innocent unborn children ever since. For 8 years, I worked with the Willkes on legislation to ban the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. With their significant help and influence, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed Congress, was signed into law by President Bush, was upheld by the United States Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote, and is now the law of the land.

Despite Barb's passing, her legacy and good works will live on. God bless Barbara Willke.

Mr. Speaker, as dean of the Ohio Republican delegation in the House, I was greatly saddened to hear of the untimely passing early Sunday morning of our friend and former colleague, Representative Charlie Wilson. Although Charlie and I were on different sides of the aisle and often disagreed on policy, I always admired his dedication to our State and his tireless energy as he worked to serve his constituents to the best of his ability.

I am not alone when I say that a conversation with Charlie was always

memorable and usually ended with broad smiles as you parted company. One thing that Charlie and I did have in common is that we played college football, and we were both defensive linemen. And at least in our own minds, the older we got, the better we had been.

Charlie Wilson was an honorable man, a trusted ally, and a worthy opponent. I ask my colleagues to join in wishing his four sons and nine grandchildren our condolences. His 14 years of government service in Ohio and in Washington, D.C., is a legacy they should always cherish and be proud of.

God bless Charlie Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, research released this week from the National Federation of Independent Business indicates that more small businesses are decreasing their number of employees than increasing. On top of that, the net percent of owners planning to hire new employees fell last month to zero percent.

Some of this unfortunate news can be attributed to the legal chaos created by the Administration's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB--appointments that a U.S. Court of Appeals rendered unconstitutional. Despite this ruling, the NLRB continues to issue job-crushing edicts.

Unfortunately, this confusion is only creating more costly litigation--not jobs.

The Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, H.R. 1120, will resolve this confusion by preventing the NLRB from implementing, administering, or enforcing any new decisions, until a duly appointed and confirmed board can be organized.

I am proud to support this legislation on behalf of businesses through Southwest Ohio, and I hope the Senate will act quickly on it in order to provide some certainty for employees and employers.