Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5449, the matter just considered by the House.

Mr. Chairman, going to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, it is a beautiful place.

Mr. Chairman, I did not request this earmark; Mr. Shuster did. I think he has adequately defended it. I would rise, as the chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee, to tell the gentleman, in 2004, the EPA identified 495 counties across America, maybe some in your district, that are not in attainment.

The purpose of this program, as Mr. Shuster laid out, is to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency; And he went through what it is going to flock out of the air. I would tell the gentleman, because I listened carefully to his discussion of the previous appropriations bill and this one, this is authorized. We did it in the Energy Act, $200 million a year for the next 5 years, $49 million is provided for these programs in the President's budget this year.

I know the gentleman is busy. But if he ever has a free moment and you want to come to the Railroad Subcommittee, we did in fact conduct oversight hearings on programs like this, talking about the new technologies, talking about the public-private partnerships that are going to get us into the next century.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman, because of programs like this we are now able to move a ton of cargo from New York to Boston on one gallon of diesel fuel; and thanks to Mr. Shuster's innovations and foresight in earmarking this program, we are going to do it without polluting the air.

So I hope the gentleman reconsiders this amendment. It is authorized, and we have had oversight.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

In one of the few times since 1995 when we arrived in the House together, I am going to disagree with the gentleman from Illinois and will vote against this resolution today.

I want to talk a little bit about the Cleveland experience and then the process and how we moved forward, which has been addressed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

I understand why the gentleman from Illinois has brought this resolution here today because I remember the shudder that can go through a community when 1,200 jobs are being discussed, in some cases more, some cases less. In Cleveland's case, they were jobs that pay an average of $54,000 a year. You are not just talking about the loss of the tax base. You are also talking about individuals who have made lives, whether it be in Cleveland, Indiana, Colorado, Missouri or other parts of the country.

I had one grandmother who came up to me in Lake County, Ohio, after the decision was made to keep the facility open in Cleveland, and she said I want to thank you because it means my grandchildren will not be going to some faraway place. I can understand the shudder, and as the gentleman from Colorado said, maybe we should reexamine how we engage in this. But I want to talk about the process.

The process, although it was nerve-racking, was also healthy. It was healthy because it gave me the opportunity to work together with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I am Republican and they are Democrats, and we all put our shoulders to the same wheel to get the same result. It was good to see the labor community and the business community in Cleveland all come together, because sometimes they have disagreements. It was encouraging to see the leadership of the city of Cleveland come together, with Mayor Campbell and others all working towards achieving this result. From bad news, good news took place.

But as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) said, it was not because the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I are so powerful. This was a process done on facts. Anthony Principi and the BRAC commissioners and the professional staff, and hats off to Marilyn Wasleski in particular, they took the time to look at the numbers and figure out that when the Pentagon came up with its original proposal, they had the numbers wrong. Just one small example: they overvalued the square footage that was being paid to the General Services Administration so Cleveland did not score as well.

It would have been easy to say we are not going to pay attention to that, but the BRAC commissioners paid attention. They paid attention to the arguments and observations; and at the end of the day, Cleveland did not win because Cleveland had more political muscle, Cleveland won on the facts and on objective standards.

Another thing that impressed me, the BRAC Commission not only looked at the numbers, they looked at the human cost. They considered the value of the 1,100 people that work in that building, the Celebrezze Federal building in the city of Cleveland, and they said to those Federal employees, you have value, you have worth. They recognized what they have accomplished in becoming centers of excellence, and they were rewarded for that. That is exactly what we would want to encourage.

The last thing I want to say, we have some force protection issues, antiterrorism protection for Federal properties are coming up in 2009. I understand that when it comes to the men and women who are serving in the active military, but the Cleveland facility is made up primarily of accountants. And I want to protect our men and women in uniform, but the folks in the Cleveland building are accountants, by and large. And I try to read all of the chatter from al Qaeda and everywhere else, and I do not hear a lot of chatter about taking out the accountants. I would argue that our civilian Department of Defense employees are valuable, but they are no more valuable than the people who work for the Social Security Administration or the U.S. Marshal's Office. Before we make sure that we fortify and penetrate all of these buildings for DOD civilian employees' work, we should look at force protection for everybody who works for the Federal Government.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for not only yielding me this time but also for his leadership in bringing S. 1786 to the floor and also the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) on the Aviation Subcommittee.

I asked for time today to indicate that S. 1786 is exactly the kind of legislation that we should be crafting in both the House and the Senate and sending to the President of the United States in response to the devastation of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. And primarily what motivated me to come speak today is that there was mischief afoot in the other body as this bill was being crafted relative to the issue of prevailing wages. And there is some thought that while we should extend grants through the AIP program to help ailing airports, perhaps we could do it on the cheap and suspend what are known as Davis-Bacon wages.

And I want to alert the House and my fellow Members that this is something that will come to a head in a couple of weeks. It is disturbing to a number of us. Davis and Bacon happened to be Republican legislators who, after the Great Depression, became concerned with the issue of bands of roving laborers going from market to market and undercutting the local labor market and not living in the community, not receiving a decent wage, not paying taxes that supported the infrastructure, the schools and other things that go on. And unlike S. 1786, other legislation that we have already crafted in the House and an executive order by the President of the United States has suspended, we hope temporarily, Davis-Bacon wages for the reconstruction of the gulf coast. And I have heard a lot of different stories as to why that was done. Some in my party say it is all going to go to the labor unions and we do not want to help the labor unions.

I will tell them, not only was the history of Davis-Bacon of Republican origin, the sad and really the truth of the matter is that if we look at what the combined wage rates are in the gulf coast for the laborer, the carpenter, the operating engineer, it is certainly not some sop to the labor unions.

For example, in Alabama, Madam Speaker, a laborer makes $5.15 an hour. Tell me, where we are going to find somebody to clear away the horrible debris in the gulf coast for less than $5.15 an hour, first of all, and why would we, as a Federal policy, even think that that was a good idea?

The other unintended consequence of the suspension of Davis-Bacon is that we repeal things known as the Copeland Anti-Kickback provisions. And what that says is, if people are complying with the Federal Labor Standards Act, they have to, if they are a contractor, submit every week a certified payroll with the employee's name, what their wage rate was, what their Social Security number is, and what they did. They cannot come waltzing in as a contractor and say, I hired 50 guys with chainsaws last week and here is my bill. It makes sure that we do not permit profiteering in the gulf coast. It makes sure that our Federal dollars are spent as we intend them, and it makes sure that some unscrupulous contractors do not come in and make a boatload of money on the backs of the misery in the gulf coast.

So while I think S. 1786 is a wonderful piece of legislation, we are doing it the right way, I do sort of serve notice to the House that there are some of us on this side of the aisle that do not intend to let this situation with reconstruction and the situation with Davis- Bacon stand much longer.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome this morning Father Tom Johns of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Mentor, OH, as the guest chaplain today. I am honored to have Father Johns here today.

I want to welcome him, his sister and brother-in-law, Trish and Denny, and their two children, Kyle and Kayla, to the House of Representatives.

Father Johns has been with St. John Vianney since 1993 and became pastor in January of 1998. He is a treasured member of our community, and he also has a special Washington connection. Several years ago, Father Johns presided over the wedding of Kirsti Talikka Garlock, counsel for the House Committee on International Relations, and her husband, Vince. I know it is a thrill for them to have Father Johns here this morning as the guest chaplain.

I first met Father Johns at the home of Jim and Ruthie Jackson a number of years ago, and they referred to him as Father Tom. Even though I am a Methodist and he is a Roman Catholic, I have to tell you that it is probably a good duty when you are marrying somebody like Kirsti and Vince. I have also had the sad occasion of being with him when he was the presiding official at the funeral of not only Jim Jackson but also Mike Brown. And Father Johns's ability to help friends and family get through those occasions really makes him a special person in my mind. It is a pleasure to have Father Thomas Johns with us today, and I thank him for being here.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of our time, 10 minutes, be yielded to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and that he be permitted to yield time from that 10 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, on the issue of Amtrak, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) had an impossible task, and I know that we will hear that again and again and again. The original budget submission from the President talked about zero, and then we went up to $360-some million, and now we find ourselves with a bill at $550 million.

I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as I said, the ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and it ensures that we will maintain a little less than last year, but we will at least make sure that Amtrak can continue its valuable function. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his guidance and leadership as we drafted this amendment, and for the assistance of his staff.

Unlike aviation, highways, and transit, there is no dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development. These other modes all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted infrastructure, and rely on government-supported security, research, and traffic controllers.

We are certainly willing to listen to reform proposals as they come forward. Already, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, we have had two hearings dealing with difficulties of Amtrak. We are about to launch a series of hearings on reforms as we move into this next century, but this particular piece of legislation effectively strands millions of passengers and, I would assert, is irresponsible.

The funding levels of $550 million would force Amtrak to shut down all operations and declare bankruptcy.

If H.R. 3058 is enacted as it is now, Amtrak would be forced to pay $360 million in mandatory labor severance payouts for employees laid off from the elimination of the 15 long distance routes and three shorter routes in the bill, and $278 million for debt service. Since that total of $638 million is greater than 550, Amtrak, the railroad would be forced to default on its debts, abandon its labor agreements and declare bankruptcy.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the bill, the amendment we had printed in the Record originally would have taken us back to the $1.24 billion of last year. Due to some difficulties in scoring, this amendment would restore $1.176 billion. That represents only about 2 percent of the DOT's budget of $60 billion, whereas 50 percent of the Department's spending goes to highways; $20 billion goes to air travel. America relies on this service. This is not the amendment that I think either the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) or I would have wanted to bring to the floor with some of the offsets we were required to choose. But that is the nature of the rules of the game. I think originally we talked about invading perhaps the F&E account and FAA, but thanks to some rather very clever authorizing work by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in years past, we were prevented from doing that today.

This is a good amendment. I ask all of our colleagues to consider it.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

(Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the last 30 seconds of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with Amtrak is that Congress has micromanaged its operation. What is wrong with Amtrak is that the United States Congress has not permitted David Gunn to implement the reform package that he sent up here in April of this year.

I heard a lot of comments about the food service. I conducted that hearing with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), and these statements made on the floor are a little less than accurate.

Lastly, I have to tell my colleagues that priority is important; but I need to remind people that I voted for a lot of stuff that I might not have thought is important: cranberry and blueberry research, sweet potato research, a tattoo-removal program, and even a national anger management program. Amtrak is at least as important as removing tattoos with Federal money.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have the revival gusto that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) does, but I do want to oppose strenuously this amendment.

We had, for a long time now, rather a vigorous discussion on the Amtrak system, and I do not know if the gentleman from Minnesota was present during that discussion, but when I hear the $550 that Amtrak should be thankful for, the evidence was pretty clear in the statements that we gave that that $550 was worse than a shutdown number; it was bankruptcy number, because Amtrak with its obligations for labor costs, almost $400 million, and for its debt service, almost $300 million, it would have forced the system into bankruptcy, ending not these long- distance routes, which were the subject of the last amendment, but all Amtrak service in all of the United States, including the northeast corridor and service out west.

What this amendment does not allow us to do, now that we have squeaked the Amtrak number back up, it is not $1.2 billion. It is $1.176 billion which is below last year's spending, which is $1.244 billion. To take $100 million now after a lot of hard work, quite frankly, by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to identify some hard decisions for offsets, but that is the environment we find ourselves in, but we were successful in doing that, breathing new life into the Amtrak program, giving David Gunn the opportunity to implement the plan that he just sent to us on Capitol Hill in April of this year.

Are we so impatient that we have to identify long-distance routes and we have to take a meat axe approach to the Amtrak budget that we cannot let some of the reforms work?

David Gunn gets it. He gets that there is a problem with the food service, and he needs to do something about it. He gets the fact that the Acela high-speed train system has some difficulty with disk brakes that were manufactured in a poor fashion, and he needs to do something about it.

Those of us on the authorizing committee get it, and that is why we have already had two hearings dealing with difficulties at Amtrak. The next phase will be to invite people with all the good ideas, and everybody in this chamber has good ideas about how to fix something, anybody that has a good idea on how to reform Amtrak, to invite the States to participate in providing quality inter city train service in this country, will be invited to appear before our subcommittee and also the full committee to engage in that discussion.

But this amendment, I have to say, really is a wolf in sheep's clothing because its purports to help homeless people. Everybody in the Chamber I bet wants to help homeless people, but the real intent, I would suggest, is to take $100 million away from Amtrak that we have just been able to restore. It was unanimous. It was a voice vote. Everybody supported it on the last occasion, and that, again, puts us into a bankruptcy situation. It is bad policy.

Every other industrialized Nation in the world recognizes that passenger rail service is something worth keeping. The United States Congress, or some of us, seem to be the only body in the world that think that it is not worth saving.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 32, line 25, beginning with ``provided further'' through page 33, line 3.

This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 34, line 4.

This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 151 on page 35, line 25, through page 36, line 5.

This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Offered By: Mr. LaTourette

Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 10, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $17,339,000)''.

Page 2, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $2,052,000)''.

Page 2, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $1,910,000)''.

Page 2, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $1,422,000)''.

Page 3, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $11,895,000)''.,

Page 3, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $60,000)''.

Page 4, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $31,583,000)''.

Page 6, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $25,000,000)''.

Page 9, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $59,000,000)''.

Page 29, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $26,325,000)''.

Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $657,000,000)''.

Page 42, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $6,592,000)''.

Page 51, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

Page 164, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $745,409,000)''.

Page 164, line 12, after the second dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.

Page 165, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.

Page 166, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $568,409,000)''.

Page 166, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $133,417,000)''.

Page 167, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $434,992,000)''.

Page 169, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.

Page 171, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $17,500,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by our colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

In my district in northeastern Ohio, locally owned small businesses are the foundation of our communities, from tool and die makers to landscapers to mom and pop corner hardware stores. The Small Business Administration 7(a) program has a proud history of ensuring that these small businesses will continue to have access to affordable financing.

As the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) has noted, changes were made to the 7(a) program last year that dramatically altered its funding structure by eliminating the Federal Government's contribution and making the entire program self-sustaining. I have seen the data from my district on the amount of funding provided to small businesses since the program was altered, and I have heard the arguments that the program is actually more stable and that lending has not dropped off.

And while I have nothing but respect for not only the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) but also the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo), I have to ask myself what could have been. If a furniture maker in Middlefield, Ohio, wanted access to capital to expand his facilities but decided against it because the fees on the 7(a) loan would have been too much of a burden for his business, how many more jobs could we have created if we had continued the Federal participation in the 7(a) program?

And I listened intently and I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) when he spoke against the last amendment, the last couple of amendments on the Byrne issue when across-the-board amendment cuts are not a good idea. And I agree with that. But I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for where we found the offsets. They come from the IT accounts at the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Small Business Administration.

It is my understanding, and if I am wrong in this regard I am sure the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) can correct me, that relative to the Justice Department, it comes from a proposal to sell off and replace computer broadband and replace with narrow band, allowing them to sell the broadband, and money will actually be recouped to finance that.

Secondly, in the State Department they are charging fees on visas which would also allow those upgrades. And relative to the IT account in the Small Business Administration, the upgrade that needs to take place in the country is the small business community. And I would just indicate that, you know, on this side of the aisle we champion all the time that small businesses in this country are the backbone, the drivers of this economy. The 7(a) program needs Federal participation to not only be as good as it is today but to be better tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. I want to commend Chairman Lewis of the full committee, Chairman Rogers of the subcommittee, and also Chairman Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for having dialogues on these particular sections.

These sections in H.R. 2360 make appropriations to three State and local grant programs that are not and have never been authorized, specifically, a trucking industry security grant system, an inner city bus security grants

and inner city rail, freight rail and transit security grants. In each of these areas, the Department of Transportation has existing and ongoing security programs that are managed at the Federal and State level by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and State safety oversight agencies.

The FRA act provides the Federal Railroad Administration with strong authority to promote rail safety in every aspect of rail operations. The FRA has a robust and active inspector workforce that is on the ground every day inspecting the safety and security of America's freight railroads, and the same with the truck safety and the same with the bus safety.

I want to commend the appropriations subcommittee for looking at this problem, but I want to point out that, one, there is no authorization from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; two, it is my understanding in the homeland security bill that will be on the floor tomorrow there is no authorization as well.

One of the problems that we have seen in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure right here in the District of Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is the city council and the District of Columbia when they have looked at a pot of money or when they have looked at a program that has been passed by homeland security but has not gone back and referenced the Federal Rail Act have said, You know what? No more trains going through the District of Columbia. You are going to have copycat legislation like this all over the United States of America.

It is my understanding, and I would invite the distinguished subcommittee chairman to comment if he would want to, that Chairman Lewis and Chairman Young have talked about the fact that we need to make sure that we do not create an overlay of law and regulation that permits these NIMBY things to pop up. Obviously, everybody in this House wants the safest rail system, safest trucking system, and the safest inner-city bus systems in the world. But we cannot do it if we create a fund over here, a fund over there, and a fund over there.

I would hope that the chairman perhaps could commit to us to working as this bill goes to conference to see how we can put these into existing programs or work out new programs that achieve what I know the chairman is trying to achieve.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do agree. And I want to thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman. I know some of the frustration that some of us have felt is that the TSA should be named the Aviation Security Administration rather than the Transportation Security Administration. So I know that what the gentleman and the subcommittee were attempting to do was shared by at least this gentleman and I would assume most of the people in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Our concern, and I think our concern has always been, as we move forward, that we not create two parallel universes, neither of which has sufficient money to get this job done. And the only purpose of this amendment, which I am going to withdraw when I am through yielding to the gentleman, was that we look at existing programs that already exist and if we want to put $150 million dollars in for rail security that it go to the FTA and that we say that it is going to be used only for security and it is not going to be used for other goofy stuff.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today is National Teacher Day. It is a day for honoring teachers and recognizing the lasting contributions they make to our lives. This day acknowledges the fact that a great teacher can make a world of difference in any child's life. A great teacher may be the bridge between the mediocre and true excellence. Our society owes a debt of gratitude to those teachers who have helped us along the way.

In this spirit, I rise today to honor the life of an extraordinary teacher, David W. Shaner. On February 3, 2005, at the age of 83, Mr. Shaner died near his winter home in the Villages, Florida. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Shaner was a teacher at Riverside High School in Painesville, Ohio.

Mr. Shaner was born Sept. 18, 1921, in Cherry Tree, PA. Since his retirement in 1985, Mr. Shaner divided his time between his homes in Erie, PA, Painesville and the Villages, FL.

He served in the U.S. Army during World War II, in the China-Burma- India theatre, attaining the rank of Master Sergeant. He was an honors graduate of Lebanon Valley College.

As a teacher, Mr. Shaner demanded excellence, and most often received it. He had little patience for laziness or ``can't do'' attitudes. He also had a remarkable zeal for life. He was brilliant, lively, humorous, and loved the arts.

Mr. Shaner was very devoted to his family, his friends and his former students. He consistently encouraged his students to reach for greatness in order to realize their potential.

As recently as 1998, the community gathered in his honor in The David W. Shaner Auditorium at Riverside High School in Painesville Township. The event, The Living Legacy Concert, included performances by former students who have distinguished themselves in the performing arts. Among them was renowned opera singer, Heidi Skok (Riverside Class of 1985), who encapsulated Mr. Shaner's influence on his students, ``He instilled a sense of discipline that even today I use in my career . . . he always set the bar up higher and made you want to grab that bar, which is what helps you succeed.''

During the last days of his life, he spoke by telephone to many of his former students and colleagues whose lives he continued to touch as both a friend and mentor. His discipline and selfless dedication to his students and his craft were legendary. He said it best himself, ``I dedicated my life to teaching and play-directing and making students live the very best lives they can. One must be proud of oneself. Teachers need to set an example for students.''

Mr. Shaner joined the faculty of Riverside High School in 1951, where he taught English, drama and theater. In his illustrious 34-year career, he produced 54 plays, including ``Annie Get your Gun,'' ``Seventeen,'' ``The Man Who Came to Dinner,'' ``Meet Me in St. Louis,'' ``The Sound of Music,'' ``Camelot,'' ``The Miracle Worker,'' ``Fiddler on the Roof,'' ``The Diary of Anne Frank'' and ``Bye Bye Birdie.''

David W. Shaner is more than worthy of receiving Congressional recognition today on National Teacher Day--a day fitting to honor America's classroom heroes. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable person, and I ask that all Americans thank a teacher today.

Mr. Speaker, today I had a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of Louis Capet Shepard, the only Medal of Honor winner from Ashtabula County, Ohio, which is in my congressional district. Shepard served in the U.S. Navy during the Civil War.

Louis C. Shepard was born in Ashtabula on September 2, 1841, and served in the Navy as an ordinary seaman. Shepard was awarded the Medal of Honor for his valor during the assault on Fort Fisher in North Carolina. The Medal of Honor is the country's highest award for valor.

Each time a Medal of Honor is awarded, the following words are spoken: ``For Conspicuous Gallantry and Intrepidity in Action at the Risk of Life, Above and Beyond the Call of Duty.'' These words certainly exemplify Shepard's actions during the assault on Fort Fisher on January 15, 1865.

According to records, Shepard was honored for advancing gallantly through severe enemy fire while armed only with a revolver and cutlass which made it impossible to return the fire at that range. Shepard succeeded in not only reaching the angle of the fort, but in being one of the few to enter it. When the rest of the men to his rear were forced to retreat due to devastating fire, Shepard was forced to withdraw and seek the shelter of one of the mounds near the stockade. Shepard then succeeded in regaining the safety of his ship. Shepard was just 23 years old at the time.

After the fall of Fort Fisher on January 15, 1865, the Confederate army evacuated its remaining forts in the Cape Fear area, and Union forces soon overtook Wilmington. Once Wilmington fell, the supply line of the Confederacy was severed, and the war soon ended.

It's a tremendous honor for Ashtabula County to be the home of a Medal of Honor winner. Fewer than 3,500 Medals of Honor have been awarded since the decoration was created in 1861. There were 1,522 awards for the Civil War, and 307 of the medals were awarded to men in the Navy. Of those, 195 medals went to Ohioans, including Shepard, who died at the age of 77 and is buried in Lakeview Cemetery in Port Clinton.

Mr. Speaker, the flag that was flown over the United States Capitol today will be unveiled on Memorial Day during the dedication ceremony for the new Ashtabula County Veterans Memorial. I applaud VFW Post 3334 in Jefferson for their efforts on behalf of the new memorial, and for choosing to honor the valor of Louis C. Shepard, the only Medal of Honor winner from Ashtabula County.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time, and, Mr. Speaker, I am a recovering member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I just want to tell my story briefly about a complaint that was pending last year.

When the complaint was pending, these good government groups indicated that I was unfit to sit in judgment because the majority leader had donated to my campaign over 10 years and I was corrupt. When I voted unanimously with my colleagues to send a couple of letters to the majority leader, I then possessed the wisdom of Solomon. When the Speaker replaced me on the committee with other members this year, I am now up for sainthood in a number of churches across the country.

I tell this story because what I think what the Speaker was attempting to get at, during the course of that complaint there were press conferences held by people, rather than letting the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct do its work. And the Speaker saw that one of the rules changes was, you know what, you cannot choose your own lawyer. Well, that is ridiculous, and I do not think any of us would stand for that in any other venue.

He also, during consideration of one of the complaints, found that two members, who did not even have any part of what allegedly was going on, received letters from the committee saying, your conduct is in question. He felt that due process was required in that situation, and I agree with him, and I think most people in this body would agree with him.

I would hope as we make these changes, and I want to commend Speaker Hastert, because this is a magnanimous gesture on his part, it is tough to recognize and admit that maybe something was not done in an appropriate way and that we take a step back and do it, and Speaker Hastert has had the courage to do that today.

But the next step, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, is going to be that there will be a complaint filed against a Republican or a Democrat and there will be these outside interest groups that say, if it is against the Democrat, the five Democrats on the committee are trying to protect their buddy; or if it is against a Republican, that the five Republicans are attempting to protect their friend and their buddy.

I would hope as we make these changes, with the Speaker's blessing,

that every Member of this House commit themselves to let the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct do their work, and we never impugn the integrity of the men and women who serve honorably.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 41) recognizing the second century of Big Brothers Big Sisters, and supporting the mission and goals of that organization.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 41, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 41, a resolution that honors one of America's greatest charities. This year marks the 101st year since the founding of Big Brothers Big Sisters.

Over the past century, this organization has been devoted to the well-being and development of our Nation's young people. Big Brothers Big Sisters aims to provide a mentor to every child who wants or needs one. Today, Big Brothers Big Sisters serves over 200,000 children ages 6 to 18, nationwide.

Performance statistics prove that children who are mentored by Big Brothers Big Sisters are much less likely than their peers to use illegal drugs or alcohol, to skip school, and

are more likely to have strong relationships with their families.

Today, the House specifically recognizes the thousands of mentors who have made a difference through Big Brothers Big Sisters during its first century. Mentoring a child requires no special training or experience, just a willingness to spend time with a child during his or her formative years. We salute their compassion.

Mr. Speaker, along with my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), I commend Big Brothers Big Sisters for its commitment to helping children in need reach their potential, and I urge the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 41.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), one of the lead cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for sharing their personal experiences with us relative to mentoring, and I urge passage of the concurrent resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1236) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong Memorial Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1236, the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this post office naming legislation honors a wonderful civic leader. Tony Armstrong had served as mayor of Sparks, Nevada, since being first elected in 1999. Sadly, Mayor Armstrong passed away on January 29 from complications due to a December surgery to remove his spleen. He was 59 years of age. H.R. 1256 will name a post office in his honor in his hometown of Sparks, and I support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a 6-year stint in the Nevada Air National Guard during the 1960s, Tony Armstrong had lived in Sparks since the age of 4. In 1989, he was elected to the Sparks City Council, where he served until becoming mayor in 1999. He was a man whose passionate principles shaped his leadership. As his former colleague on the city council, Councilman Mike Carrigan said, ``Mayor Armstrong's priorities were God first, his family second, and the City of Sparks third.

Mayor Armstrong is survived by his beloved wife, Debby, and his adult children Richard, Keith and Misti. Our hearts and prayers go out to the entire Armstrong family.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) was very close with Mayor Armstrong. They grew up together and they have served the people of Nevada together. I thank the gentleman for honoring his friend, Tony Armstrong, by dedicating this post office in his honor, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1236.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for his reflections of his friend, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1524) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ``Ed Eilert 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 and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1524 designates this postal facility in Overland Park, Kansas, as the Ed Eilert Post Office Building. The four members of the Kansas State congressional delegation have all endorsed this legislation, and I join them in support of the bill.

After more than a quarter of a century, Ed Eilert stepped down from being a leader in Overland Park government on Monday, April 11. Ed Eilert's public service career began when he was elected to the Overland Park City Council in 1977. In 1981, he was elected to the first of six terms as mayor of Overland Park that spanned 24 years. Overland Park has doubled in population and become Kansas' second largest city under Mayor Eilert's direction. Without question, Ed Eilert is a one-man institution in east central Kansas. This post office on Antioch Road is a natural and deserved commemoration of Mayor Eilert's legacy and distinguished leadership.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Members of the House, I congratulate Mayor Ed Eilert on his tremendous tenure in local government and wish him the very best in retirement. I applaud the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for working toward passage of H.R. 1524.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his reflections of his friend, urge passage of the bill; and I yield back the balance of my time.