Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2022) to designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois the ``Senator Paul Simon Federal Building''.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 2022 designates the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois, as the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building.

This bill has the bipartisan support of the entire delegation in the State of Illinois. Although Senator Simon was born in Eugene, Oregon, he made the State of Illinois his home. Senator Simon's service to his State ranged from being a budding newspaper editor to public official to educator.

After attending the University of Oregon and Dana College in Nebraska, Senator Paul Simon moved to Troy, Illinois, and pursued a career as newspaper editor and publisher. Having successfully built a chain of 14 weekly publications, Senator Paul Simon enlisted in the Army, where he served from 1951 to 1953.

From 1963 until 1973, he was elected to various positions, serving in the Illinois House of Representatives, the State Senate, and also as lieutenant governor. He then continued to represent Illinois at the Federal level. He served in the House of Representatives from 1975 until 1985. Subsequently, Paul Simon ran for, and was elected to, the United States Senate, where he served until 1997. Senator Simon then returned to Illinois following his retirement and served as director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. He passed away on December 9, 2003.

This is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to the State of Illinois and his country. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased today that managing the bill for the minority is the distinguished individual who used to be our ranking member and then went on to bigger and better things as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Although we are requesting that the Senate version of this bill be passed under suspension today, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) has been a tireless champion of making sure that the companion legislation, similar legislation to this, be passed on the House side. It is my pleasure to be with him today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he might consume to another outstanding Member from the State of Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my friend and classmate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3147) to designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the ``James V Hansen Federal Building,'' as amended.

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 materials on H.R. 3147 and S. 2022.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3147 has been introduced by our colleague the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and it designates the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V Hansen Federal Building.

James Vear Hansen was born in Salt Lake City on August 14, 1932. After graduating from the public schools of Salt Lake City, he served in the U.S. Navy, and upon his discharge attended

and graduated from the University of Utah.

Following his graduation, Mr. Hansen began a long and successful career, notable in his devotion to serving his community. I have already mentioned that he served honorably in the Navy, but he also served on the Farmington, Utah, City Council for 12 years and in the Utah State House of Representatives for 7. During his final year in that body, he served as speaker, and in 1980 was elected to this body. He served with distinction in the House of Representatives for 22 years.

While serving in the House, James Hansen served on a number of committees, including the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Resources, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. He also served as chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as well as chairman of the Committee on Resources.

During his time in Congress, he devotedly served his constituents and the Nation by preserving key military facilities in his district. He fought for the responsible use of public lands and secured key investments in Utah's infrastructure in advance of the 2002 winter Olympic games, which were some of the most successful in the modern history of the games.

I am honored to support this legislation for a man worthy of such an honor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of our time be yielded to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the author of this bill, and that he be permitted to yield time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for yielding me time.

I have been here 10 years, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say that the other day in our Republican Conference, where this was discussed, the most eloquent talk on behalf of a State was given by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) on behalf of the citizens of the State of Georgia, and Georgians should be proud of his representation as well as the other Members who are sponsoring this amendment.

Having said that, I think he is wrong, however. I am glad he brought up charts because I have three charts that have been given to me over the last couple of days. One chart prepared by the gentleman from Georgia's group shows that Ohio is getting $359 million more over the life of the bill, the 6-year bill; I have a chart that was prepared by the gentleman from Illinois that shows we are getting $225,000 more; and I have a chart prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation that shows that we are losing $128 million.

Facts are stubborn things. Charts each make different assumptions in this particular debate. That is why the committee has always had the position that, look, the problem with this bill is we need more money. We need more money so we can fix the donor/donee State problem. We need more money so we can fix the distribution problem. But it cannot be fixed with this amendment. I would respectfully ask the sponsors who come from donor States, if the assumptions made under the DOT chart are right, Florida is losing $187 million and Georgia 28. If they happen to be right at the end of the day, then this is not going to be a good thing.

I would hope that the Members that are sponsoring this amendment standing up so valiantly for their States would let us try and work this out in a conference with the other body so we do come to a fair resolution and continue the growth that we had from ISTEA to TEA 21 and make TEA LU a bill that everybody can be proud of.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give a piece of praise this morning to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the mighty work and just the first names of some people on the staff: Levon and Liz and Lloyd and Fraser and Graham and some other people that I will forget because they literally had to write this bill three, four, five different times from where it started at $375 billion.

So when the gentleman from Minnesota was talking rightly about the contributions that the gentleman from Illinois has made, the staff of both the majority and minority have done yeomen's work to produce this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that is desperately needed in the United States.

But I do feel constrained this morning to say despite the need, despite the need that everybody on the committee recognizes, this bill has been bungled,

not bungled by the able leadership of the committee but it has been bungled. By not getting a signal to reauthorize this legislation when TEA 21 expired last September, AASHTO tells us that we have cost the economy over $2 billion, and 90,000 jobs that could have been created have not been created.

The failure to make this bill $375 billion, and the gentleman from Minnesota was right on the money. This is not a number that the committee made up. Those numbers came from the Department of Transportation as the need that exists in this country.

When I go home to Ohio, a lot of people say to me, I see that you're spending $18.4 billion this year alone to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. That is again something that a lot of people in this House think that we need to do after what we have done in Iraq. We are begging, trying to squeeze out $18 billion over 6 years to build roads in the United States. My constituents do not understand that and they have difficulty and, quite frankly, so do I.

There was a lot of talk yesterday in our Republican Conference and criticism of Chairman Young that this bill does not embrace Republican principles. I have said it on the floor before: Abraham Lincoln in 1865, I just saw the special on the History Channel, got the guy that ran the Ames Shovel Company in Massachusetts to build the transcontinental railroad. That is a Republican principle. Dwight David Eisenhower was the spearhead behind the national highway system that we enjoy and use today for national defense. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush all recognized, and it is not to say anything about Democratic values, that Republican values in this country are based upon a strong defense and a strong infrastructure in this country.

We are told that 32 percent of our major roads are in poor condition and that 26 percent of our bridge infrastructure is totally deficient. Last year, 1,400 Ohioans died on the roads in Ohio. One-third of those deaths, Mr. Chairman, are directly attributable to poor roads and roadside hazards. So why some bean counters have determined that we can do this bill on the cheap when the infrastructure needs of this country are crying out for repair is beyond me.

But, having said that, again the gentleman from Alaska, the gentleman from Minnesota and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee have done their level best. This is a good bill, it will help us, but we need about $100 billion more to get the job done.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I am proud to offer this amendment with the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). I offered a similar amendment in committee, and the chairman and the ranking member have been kind enough to work with us to incorporate as much as possible into the manager's amendment today.

Mr. Chairman, as Members know, we have a manufacturing crisis in this country. We have lost an estimated 3 million manufacturing jobs. While many of us may hold different views on how that came about, I think we can all agree that the Federal Government should be part of the solution to the crisis.

The problem here is that there is too much confusion currently as to what a manufactured good is. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) had a sense of Congress on the floor a little earlier that addressed this issue. Today, Buy America requires that a manufactured good must be made with components assembled in the United States. Subcomponents, however, do not have to be American made. This has caused a good deal of confusion.

This amendment that the gentlewoman from Michigan and I are offering will correct the problem. The amendment is a modified version of H.R. 3682, the Protecting American Manufacturing Jobs Act, which was introduced by the gentlewoman from Michigan. We were able to work this out with input from the Federal Transit Administration so they can implement it.

Under this amendment, we clarify that 60 percent of the components and subcomponents in a manufactured product must be American made. For construction projects and system acquisition, the amendment requires that 60 percent of the total cost of components and subcomponents in manufactured products must be American made. We also required that final assembly of any manufactured product must happen in the United States. By making these changes we will make sure that Federal dollars support American jobs.

This is, in my opinion, a good amendment. It helps take care of our own manufacturing jobs in this country. I urge support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the text which I have placed at the desk.

If the gentleman will yield, the committee, both minority and majority, have asked me to use this amendment as a vehicle to make technical corrections in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who, as I indicated in my other remarks, is the sponsor of the original legislation and the coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to make this observation. The Federal Government in the procurement process has no greater champion in this Congress than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. The hearings that he has conducted have literally saved the country and the taxpayers billions of dollars.

This issue, however, while I appreciate every argument that he has made, it is time, not by being protectionist but it is time in the manufacturing sector that we take care of our own in the United States. It is not unreasonable to require that 60 percent, we are not asking for 100 percent, but 60 percent of these goods and projects be manufactured in the United States and there not be some shell game where they simply have to be assembled in the United States. You could have a machine with 150 parts and today's requirement is they could all be made overseas as long as we had a shop that assembled them here in this country. It is wrong, and I ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about some of the smaller financial institutions in America. It has been about 6 years since the Congress passed the Credit Union Membership Access Act, a piece of legislation that forever changed the nature and the way the credit unions do business in this country, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank) for including in this regulatory relief bill provisions that benefit credit unions once again.

Mr. Chairman, nearly 84 million Americans enjoy low-cost financial services at their credit unions. It is imperative that we allow credit unions to continue to change with the ever-expanding financial marketplace, just as we do with the banking and the thrift industry.

Credit unions do an excellent job of serving their members, a tradition we need to help protect and preserve. Sometimes the members of credit unions will be the men and women who are serving our country valiantly in the Armed Forces.

The bill being considered today would allow credit unions to build their own buildings on DOD facilities and to pay a nominal fee for rent, a practice which had been in effect but has recently been changed. Credit unions at DOD facilities provide our troops with the tools for money management so that while they are away defending our great Nation, their personal financial dealings back at home are not ignored. This may not always be profitable; but with credit unions, it is not a matter of profit. It is a matter of people. As member-owned not-for-profit entities, credit unions serve their members to the fullest capacity.

Another provision that I want to highlight would allow credit unions who convert to community charters to continue to serve their select employee groups who were added before their conversion. As we are all aware, with today's troubled economic times, there are times when a credit union that has been associated with a plant or an industry and it is closed down or the jobs are lost, the credit union is lost as well. The credit unions that serve the people whose jobs are gone and whose plants are closed, rather than also shutting down and leaving, are instead converting to community charters.

This accomplishes two things: One, it would allow the institution to stay open and bring in new members from the community; and, two, it allows those workers to continue their important relationship with their credit union.

Mr. Chairman, again I want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts, ranking member Frank, and Chairman Oxley for crafting this bill, and I want to congratulate the trades that represent the credit unions in this town for making sure that H.R. 1375 has provisions with real teeth that benefit the credit union industry.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee for yielding me time.

I support this extension; and I recognize that, by supporting this extension, by the time this extension expires under the able leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), we will have a bill produced in the House that will be worthy of our support.

There is a great American in Cleveland, Ohio, today speaking in support of the highway bill. It is the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the former chairman of our committee, Norm Mineta, who I have nothing but respect for.

The problem is, he is supporting the wrong bill. He is supporting a bill that proposes to spend over 6 years about $258 billion that does not come close to meeting the needs of America's infrastructure.

The chairman and I were in our Republican conference today, and the transportation bill was the subject of some discussion. I have to tell you that if you are looking, not to be partisan, but if you are looking for Republican principles when it comes to highway spending, you can go to Abraham Lincoln, you can go to Dwight Eisenhower, you can go to Richard Nixon, you can go to Ronald Reagan, you can go to George H.W. Bush. All of those presidents recognized that you need to have a strong infrastructure in this country, you need to have a strong infrastructure bill, that the return on infrastructure spending is about six to one back to the government, produces hundreds of thousands, millions of jobs over the six-year life of the bill; and this President should have a bill, too.

I hope that those who are sort of trying to do transportation on the cheap and maybe have the ear of the President at the moment recognize that if you want to draw a line in the sand on spending, this is the wrong beach to draw that line on. If we are going to stay competitive with our folks around the world in Asia and in Europe, we need to make this serious investment in our Nation's infrastructure.

I just had, at the invitation of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the opportunity to be in Iraq. There is some discussion in this Chamber about whether or not we should have approved $18 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. I happen to think it was money well spent. But I will say that if we can spend money building roads in Baghdad, and Tikrit and Um Qasr, we should be able to spend money in this country building roads in Anchorage and up in Duluth and in Portland and in Chicago and in Washington, D.C., and in Cleveland, Ohio.

So I hope that when this bill comes to the floor it is closer to the $375 billion than it is the $258 billion that our good friend and former chairman, Secretary Mineta, is talking about in Cleveland, Ohio, today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), my friend, for yielding me this time; and I also want to thank him and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for managing this concurrent resolution. I also, Mr. Speaker, want to thank the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for permitting me to carry this piece of legislation.

I have had the pleasure for the last 10 years to be a member of the Holocaust Governing Council, one of the five appointed Members of Congress. During my time in Congress I have seen such giants in this institution as Ben Gilman of New York and recently the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in bringing this resolution to the floor, and it is an honor for me to have the opportunity to be a part of that today.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 359 permits the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to use the Capitol rotunda for the Days of Remembrance observation. This annual event, which takes place in the symbolic heart of our American democracy, honors the victims of the Holocaust and is a reminder to all of us that freedom and liberty have both rights and responsibilities.

Since the opening of the museum and the beginning of the Days of Remembrance sponsored by the museum,

world events have continued to demonstrate that it is imperative that we remember and study the Holocaust. From the violent breakup of Yugoslavia and the cataclysmic terror in Rwanda, to the rise of anti- semitism around the world that continues today, we live in a time when the great strides in human rights made over the last half century are in danger of losing ground to ignorance and intolerance.

That is why the theme of this year's commemoration, ``For Justice and Humanity,'' is so timely. The title comes from a statement made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt who, when he called for the rescue of the Jewish population in Hungary in March of 1944, said, ``In the name of justice and humanity, let all freedom-loving people rally to this righteous undertaking.'' By honoring rescuers along with the victims in this year's commemoration, we are shining a light on the brave acts of individuals and organizations that can teach important lessons today.

Of course, we know that it was too late for many Jews in Hungary in 1944. With the war entering its final stages, Nazi and Hungarian authorities deported about 440,000 Jews. At least half of those were murdered in gas chambers immediately upon their arrival at the labor camp Auschwitz. By the time the Nazis and their Hungarian collaborators were driven out of Hungary in April, 1945, nearly four-fifths of the Hungarian Jewish community had been killed.

Yet there were some individuals, organizations and countries that asserted the value of human life in the face of the systematic murder of men, women and children. The War Refugee Board, established in January of 1944 by President Roosevelt, had the mandate to take ``all measures to rescue victims of oppression in imminent danger of death.''

Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat based in Hungary, led the War Refugee Board's most extensive rescue efforts by distributing protective Swedish passports or travel papers to tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews. Carl Lutz, a Swiss diplomat, issued certificates of emigration, placing nearly 50,000 Jews in Budapest under Swiss protection. Italian businessman Giorgio Perlasca issued forged visas and established safe houses. When Budapest was liberated in February of 1945, more than 100,000 Jews still remained in the city because of the efforts of Wallenberg, Lutz, Perlasca and other diplomats and individuals. The War Refugee Board played a crucial role in the rescue of as many as 200,000 Jews in German-occupied Europe.

This year, as we commemorate the lives of the millions of victims of the Holocaust, we also pay tribute to the rescuers for their courageous efforts rallying ``to this righteous undertaking.''

The first visit that I had to the Holocaust Museum following my election in 1994, I was taken around by the son of a Holocaust survivor; and there are two exhibits that I would commend to my colleagues on their next visit. One was a temporary exhibit that detailed the sailing of the steamship St. Louis and how that boat was turned from port to port to port as no one would take the Jews into their country.

The second is the failed conference that took place in Avignon, France, where countries from around the world, aware of the ``Jewish problem'' during the Second World War and some of the solutions that Nazi Germany was prepared to undertake, country after country declined to take affirmative action to take Jewish immigrants into its borders, the United States being one of them.

As we ponder not only the Days of Remembrance, I hope that we as legislators also learn the lessons of the St. Louis and the conference at Avignon; and I would ask all of my colleagues to join us in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 359.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3181) to amend the Robert

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the predisaster mitigation program, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3181, the Predisaster Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act of 2003 reauthorizes the Predisaster Mitigation Program for an additional 3 years and allows the President to offer additional home repair assistance to disaster victims; restores the percentage of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds to previously authorized levels; and requires the completion of a Congressional Budget Office study on the cost-effectiveness of the program.

This program, which was originally authorized as a pilot program as a part of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 was intended to study the effectiveness of mitigation grants in the absence of a disaster, as opposed to solely following a disaster, as is currently the practice.

In addition to reauthorizing the Predisaster Mitigation Program, the bill makes two changes to other programs within the Stafford Act. H.R. 3181 authorizes the President to give additional home repair assistance when the initial amount is insignificant, and it also restores the percentage of funding available under the HMGP. In the omnibus appropriation bill that concluded the last Congress, this percentage was modified, and there was compelling testimony before our subcommittee and also brought to the attention of the members of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by people in emergency management administrations across the country that the previous levels authorized by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure were absolutely essential to the work that they do.

The bill also requires the completion of a CBO study on the effectiveness of the PDM. This study is required by December 30, 2006, by which time it is expected that there will be more information on which to study the effectiveness of the PDM.

This legislation is the product of a comprehensive and inclusive legislative process. It is, I believe, a balanced approach to disaster mitigation and worthy of our support. I thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for her invaluable assistance in crafting this legislation, and also the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Madam Speaker, I urge immediate adoption of H.R. 3181.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), a very valuable new member of our subcommittee and full committee. A lot of Members join the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but few have understood it as quickly as the gentleman from Georgia.

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

I want to thank my friend from Oregon for participating, also my friend from Georgia, again thank all the members of the subcommittee and those in the emergency management field across the country that helped participate and craft this legislation. The very able and capable staff of the committee has reminded me that yesterday we had on the floor a bill dealing with flood insurance which has a mitigation program; and although they have done mighty work, to date they have only secured 938 properties and removed them from further flood damage. This program that we are reauthorizing today has engaged in the purchase of 20,000 properties.

Again, the testimony before the subcommittee was stark and it was clear. It is easy to get a community to come together and spend money after a flood, after a hurricane, after a tornado. It is very difficult to get people to make that investment prior to, but the testimony is clear that if you make that investment in seismic upgrading of buildings or other features throughout parts of the country, you can literally save billions of dollars. It is a good program. I urge support.

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

Madam 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. 3181.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first begin by commending the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their hard work together with the conferees. I think the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) said earlier that this is the most important piece of legislation to come out of this committee this year, and I agree.

I also want to pay special tribute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). When we began working in the 106th Congress on identity theft, some people had not heard of it. Today, I think every Member has a horror story about identity theft. In my district it was Maureen Mitchell. She and her husband found out that they owned not one, but two, luxury SUVs in the period of a couple of hours in Chicago, Illinois, that they had not participated in or purchased.

I think the conferees have produced a good bill. They have not only produced a good bill; they have produced a bill that does not have a one-size-fits-all remedy, and it still gives the regulators flexibility to deal with the ever-evolving strategies that identify thieves come up with.

Lastly, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the subcommittee, because he sat through hours and hours of hearings to make sure that we got it right; and, lastly, the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), I think he had some excellent ideas on bait and switch. I hope we revisit that in the next Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this conference report, and I will get to why I am going to do it in a minute, but before I do, I want to talk about the process that has gone on.

When a bill leaves the House in a certain condition, and the certain condition in this case was the protection of the air traffic control system, and the Senate with the Lautenberg amendment does the same thing and goes a little further. When a bill goes to conference and comes back looking different, we are left on our side with the conclusion that can only come from one place.

As a Member of this body, it concerns me that we need to have, and this message is really for my leadership, we are a coequal branch of the United States Government. And if we are just going to accede to what it is that the administration wants to do, I, as a Republican, have difficulty.

I listened carefully to this debate, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is right, during the Clinton administration the contract tower program was used extensively by the Clinton administration, and under the Bush administration, there have been no privatizations. The executive order that President Clinton issued as he left office, countermanded by President Bush, is why we find ourselves here today.

The contract tower program, if run responsibly, does not mean the death of the aviation system in this country. But I would suggest, and again to my leadership, this is not about, and it never was about, the 69 towers. It is about the belief by Members on the other side of the aisle and by Members on this side, today it is 69 small airport towers, tomorrow it is Davis-Bacon, the next day it is the privatization and contracting out of the Federal workforce. There comes a point where enough has to be enough.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the bill. As to why I am going to vote for the bill, I was asked to get the 69 towers out of the bill, and I am not taking credit for that, but I went to my leadership with others, and this recommittal does that. I gave my word to the leadership, and I am going to keep my word and vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, October 20, 2003, I call up the bill (H.R. 2535) to reauthorize and improve the program authorized by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2535, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act, continues the work of the EDA by reauthorizing the agency for 5 years, updates the statute to reflect a changing economy, promotes the efficient use of resources, eliminates unnecessary and outdated provisions, and gives the Secretary flexibility to assist particularly hard-hit parts of the country. This reauthorization also includes several new provisions that will be important additions to the work of the EDA.

This legislation creates a performance-based incentive program in which eligible recipients are eligible for a bonus of up to 10 percent of the project cost by meeting criteria established in regulation; allows for the improved management and operation of revolving loan funds by amending loan areas and consolidating overlapping loans with the operator's consent and by crafting regulations that would allow for the securitization of loans consistent with security laws; and creates a planning performance award that awards up to 5 percent of a grant amount if a recipient meets several mandated criteria. By adding these provisions, EDA can better serve its constituents and do more to improve the economic future of America.

This legislation was developed through an intense process of hearings and markups. It was an open process that allowed for the input of all Members and groups with an interest in the legislation. This process has resulted in legislation that has broad bipartisan support, the support of the administration, and the support of such important partners as the National Association of Development Organizations, International Economic Development Council, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and the United States Conference of Mayors. This is a well-crafted piece of legislation. I want to thank the chairman of our full committee the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the ranking member of the full committee the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and my distinguished ranking

member on the subcommittee the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for helping us put this legislation together.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a couple of observations. One, to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his eloquent statement. I think as he recited those communities that have been helped by the EDA, that was the only commercial that we needed for the reauthorization of this valuable program. In the exhaustive hearings that we had on this issue where the gentlewoman from the District and I had the opportunity to listen to economic development experts from around the country, they talked about the fact that the average size of EDA grant is $600,000. So we are not talking about hundreds of millions, we are not talking about billions, but that $600,000 when then translated into the local community and what it meant, as recounted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I think was truly remarkable. It really is life-changing and community-changing money, and the work that they do is certainly not only well-spent but it is productive.

The second piece, the amendment that was self-executed by the agreement of the House of yesterday, I think, is important in that we have added 12 counties to the Appalachian Regional Commission. Some people expressed concern about that, particularly those communities that are already located within the ARC. I want to highlight and commend the distinguished work of one of our committee members, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) that was concerned about the fact that that might stress the resources. She made sure that an amendment was included therein that also made sure that there were sufficient funds so that that fine organization could continue its work and continue its work at a fiscally responsible level.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Speaker, we have had a couple of additional speakers show up here, and I am not sure whether the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia was expecting that. So I would ask unanimous consent that the time that she has yielded back be restored to her in case she wants to make some observations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

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

I again thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, who has truly been a wonderful cooperative partner during this first year of the 108th Congress, and I look forward to a good number of legislative successes with her in the coming year.

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

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. 2535, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 106) recognizing and honoring America's Jewish community on the occasion of its 350th anniversary, supporting the designation of an ``American Jewish History Month,'' and for other purposes.

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

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

House Concurrent Resolution 106 recognizes and honors America's Jewish community on the occasion of its 350th anniversary. In 1654, 23 Jewish immigrants from Brazil traveled across the sea and landed in North America at New Amsterdam, which eventually became New York City. Over the next few hundred years, millions more Jews from all over the world migrated to the United States in search of a better life. Our Nation is certainly a better place because they have come here. This resolution acknowledges the contributions of Jewish Americans to this great Nation, and I commend the gentleman from my home State of Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for introducing this concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a fitting way for this House to commemorate the influence of Jewish Americans on every aspect of life in our great Nation over the last 350 years. I urge all Members to support passage of House Concurrent Resolution 106.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the sponsor of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the other original cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.

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