Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

I would like to ask the gentleman to address in conference the Federal Transit Administration's ``accounting problem'' that has been created by the current law treatment that split-funds each Federal transit program 80 percent from the Mass Transit Account of the highway trust fund and 20 percent from the general fund.

Because of Office of Management and Budget accounting rules regarding the treatment of split-funded programs, every FTA program is spending down much faster than the actual outlays of these programs. In H.R. 3, or TEA-LU, we fix this accounting problem by funding each transit program wholly from either the trust fund or from the general fund, while maintaining the agency's overall 80/20 split between the Mass Transit account and the general fund. Making this structural and funding source change will allow FTA programs to outlay at their actual programmatic rates.

I ask the gentleman to work in conference to make this change, as it will have no scoring impact on the appropriations bill. If we do not make this change now, in the budget year 2006 cycle, the Mass Transit account of the highway trust fund will have a negative cash flow by fiscal year 2007. If the appropriations bill does follow the program structure change in the TEA-LU authorization, the balances of the Mass Transit account will be stabilized and, in fact, will grow over the next few years because the trust fund will be spending out at the actual programmatic outlay rate.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his response.

Madam Speaker, today the House considers H. Con. Res. 47, Commending the Establishment in College Point, New York, of the First Kindergarten in the United States.

The resolution honors the first free Kindergarten established in the United States in 1870 by Conrad Poppenhusen. I would like to note for the record that Margarethe Meyer Schurz--wife of Carl Schurz--opened the first Kindergarten in the United States in Watertown, Wisconsin in 1856.

The following is an article from the August 19, 1998 Capital Times (Madison, WI) detailing the work of Margarethe Schurz that led to the first U.S. Kindergarten in Watertown, Wisconsin.

[From the Capital Times, Aug. 19, 1998]

Aug. 27, 1832: 1st Kindergarten Sprouts; Schurz Wanted the Best

Education for Her Daughter

(By Kathy Maeglin)

As a young mother in Watertown in 1856, Margarethe Schurz

wanted her little daughter to have the educational advantages

she would have had back in their native Germany.

So Margarethe invited four little cousins to come to the

house each day for games, singing and crafts. She had been an

early student of the ``kindergarten'' movement in Germany,

and now she was employing what she had learned in her own

frontier home.

As word of Margarethe's ``class'' spread, friends

petitioned her to let their own children join in. The group

moved to a more convenient location downtown, and thus the

first kindergarten in America was created.

As Hannah Werwath Swart wrote in her biography ``Margarethe

Meyer Schurz,'' Margarethe's background likely would have led

her to establish the first American kindergarten even if she

had not had any children of her own.

Margarethe Meyer was born on Aug. 27, 1832, to a wealthy

merchant family in Hamburg, Germany.

In 1850, when she was a teenager, her older sister Bertha

became involved in a Jewish-Christian women's group that had

decided to focus on training young children as a way to

promote idealism and understanding among all people.

The group invited Friedrich Wilhelm August Froebel, the man

who created the first kindergarten in 1840, to come to

Hamburg to help them establish one there. Margarethe listened

to Froebel's lectures for two years, thereby gaining the

knowledge and inspiration that would motivate her later in

life.

When she was 19, she moved to London to run a kindergarten

that had been established there by her sister Bertha. It was

there that she met Carl Schurz, a German revolutionary who

had fled his native country.

Carl Schurz was determined to migrate to America, where he

could have the free citizenship he so desired and where much

of his family had already gone. So after their marriage, the

two idealistic young Germans set sail for America.

After living in Philadelphia for a few years, the couple

eventually settled in Watertown, which at the time was the

second largest city in Wisconsin.

It was shortly after they arrived in Watertown that

Margarethe started the activities that would result in the

kindergarten (which is German for ``children's garden'').

But Watertown did not turn out to be the major railroad

center that Carl had hoped when he chose to settle there. So

Carl made the most of his speaking skills and passion for

politics, and he ended up serving as a minister to Spain, a

general in the Civil War and finally a U.S. senator from

Missouri.

Since her husband's career took her away from Wisconsin,

Margarethe entrusted the continuation of her kindergarten to

Carl's cousin, Miss Juessen.

Others took over the school in later years and it continued

until World War I, when it was closed because the teacher

refused to teach in any language other than German, which had

become unpopular.

Margarethe Schurz died at the age of 43 on March 15, 1876,

in Washington, D.C. But her legacy lives on in schools

throughout the country as young minds are cultivated in

kindergartens, which Margarethe once described as gardens

``whose plants are human.''

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Higher Education for Freedom Act. This legislation establishes a competitive grant program making available funds to institutions of higher education, centers within such institutions, and associated nonprofit foundations. These grants would promote progams focused on the teaching and study of traditional American history, free institutions, and the history and achievements of Western Civilization at both the graduate and undergraduate level, including those that serve students enrolled in K- 12 teacher education programs.

Several years ago I was involved in a congressional effort to highlight the decline in historical and civic literacy among American college students. This effort led to the unanimous, bicameral passage of S. Con. Res. 129 which stated, in part, that ``the historical illiteracy of America's college and university graduates is a serious problem that should be addressed by the Nation's higher education community.''

Given the increased threat to American ideals in the trying times in which we live, it is easy to see how the lack of historical and civic literacy among today's college students has become a more pressing issue. Nevertheless, most of the Nation's colleges and universities no longer require United States history or systematic study of Western civilization and free institutions as a genetal prerequisite to graduation, or for completing a teacher education program.

I believe it is time for Congress to take a more active role in addressing this matter. Our country's higher education system must do a better job of providing the basic knowledge that is essential to full and informed participation in civic life and to the larger vibrancy of the American experiment in self-government, binding together a diverse people into a single Nation with common purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2566) to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

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. 2566.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill will extend for 30 days our Nation's highway, transit and safety programs when the current program expires at the end of May. We need to take this action to give us some more time to get a long-term authorization in place. Conferees will soon be named so that we can get to work to complete a conference report on H.R. 3 by the time this extension has run its course.

I ask my colleagues to approve this extension with the clear intention that the next time we are on the floor, we will be here to ask for your vote for a conference report to extend these programs to the year 2009.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2566 will extend for 30 days our nation's highway, transit and safety programs. I am not pleased that we have to bring this bill before the House, but we must move this extension--and I trust this is the last time we will do so--in order to keep our transportation program functioning as we work to finalize a multi-year reauthorization bill.

As the members know, we worked to enact such a reauthorization bill last year, but with the pressure of election-year politics and the various demands placed on the program with not enough resources to meet them, we were unable to do so before the 108th Congress adjourned.

This year, the House passed H.R. 3 by an overwhelming 417 to 9 vote on March 10. But the other body passed its version of the reauthorization just last week. With the current program expiring at the end of May, we need to take this action to give us some more time to get a long-term authorization in place.

Having said that, I hope conferees will be named soon so that we can get to work to complete a conference report on H.R. 3 by the time this extension runs its course. I do not want to be here 30 days from now, saying once again that we need just a few more weeks to get to a final agreement.

But it is going to take some hard work and require some tough decisions being made on the part of the committees and the leadership on both sides of the Capitol.

We have to work with the White House. There are complicated policy issues and, whenever you are dealing with formulas to distribute money, there are sensitive funding issues to address. But we need to get it done--and get it done right.

So one more time I will ask my colleagues to approve this extension-- with the clear intention that next time we are on the floor, we will be here to ask for your vote on a conference report to extend these programs through 2009.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to speak in support of H.R. 1760, a bill to designate a post office in Madison, Wisconsin, as the Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building.

Fighting Bob La Follette was a strong progressive Republican voice for the people in the late 19th and early 20th century. During his political career as a district attorney, and especially as a Congressman, Governor and Senator, Bob La Follette fought to improve the lot of farmers, workers, children and women, and battled against corruption in politics.

As Governor of Wisconsin, he proposed and implemented the Wisconsin Idea, a philosophy that public leadership, in combination with academic expertise, will improve the performance of government. This philosophy was the driving force in the progressive movement, and here in Washington led to the creation of, among other things, the Congressional Research Service.

Bob La Follette believed that the government should be more directly in the hands of the people. Therefore, he pursued policies, such as the establishment of direct primary nomination. Under his leadership, Wisconsin became one of the first States to adopt child labor laws and pass a women's suffrage amendment.

As a Congressman and Senator, he brought his progressive Republican politics to the national stage by playing a major role in bringing about the direct election of Senators and spearheading an investigation into the Teapot Dome scandal. And you can imagine how popular he was when elected to the United

States Senate and stood up and asked for a roll call vote over and over and over again, for the first time in a generation putting his colleagues on the record as to whether they were voting for or against railroad legislation and a variety of other things.

And the public record, combined with direct election of Senators, revolutionized the United States Senate and American politics from the Mississippi west in our country, in particular.

Bob La Follette was the kind of American that all of us, regardless of party, can be proud of. Accordingly, I urge support of H.R. 1760.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Retirement Security Act of 2005. This bill addresses the financing problems facing the Social Security Trust Fund through the creation of Personal Social Security Investment Accounts for each newborn child. This plan would establish a mechanism for reducing the long term fiscal pressures facing Social Security without changing the current benefit structure or diverting payroll taxes from the Trust Fund.

My bill seeks to use the benefits of the private market to place Social Security on a sound financial footing, as do a number of other reform plans. But more than that, I seek to maximize the magic of compound interest by opening savings accounts for future retirees as soon as they are born. Under the Retirement Security Act, the Federal government would create a personal investment account for each newborn American child with an initial government contribution of $1,000. The account would be invested in any of the funds available to Federal employees through the Thrift Savings Plan, and earnings would accrue tax free. Account holders, or the parents of minor account holders, would be free to make additional pre-tax contributions to these accounts and enjoy the opportunity to invest in these safe and well- managed investment accounts.

At retirement, each retiree would qualify for the same Social Security benefit as earned under the current Social Security system. Benefits would be paid first from each worker's personal account, and payments from the Trust Fund would begin only after the balance of the personal account had been depleted. Those who take advantage of the opportunity to make additional contributions may well find their balance in excess of the amount needed to fund their Social Security benefits, and these funds would belong to the individual investor. My bill provides a variety of options, including lump sum distributions and the purchase of life annuities with level or inflation-adjusted monthly payments for disposition of the surplus balance.

An initial contribution of $1,000 invested today that grows at the average combined rate of return of the five Thrift Savings Plan investment options would grow to an inflation adjusted balance of $58,000 by retirement at age 67. For purposes of comparison, this amount would be enough to purchase an annuity with a monthly payment equal to 46 percent of the today's average Social Security retirement benefit. A single matching payment of $1,000 by a parent on the occasion of their child's birth would endow an account which would produce almost 100 percent of the average benefit and, perhaps just as important, give that child the gift of a lifelong savings vehicle which offers the potential of greater financial security in retirement than can be provided by Social Security alone.

Clearly, the focus of my legislation is long-term. Social Security's fiscal problems will begin to pinch long before children born today are ready to retire. By now, we're all familiar with the projections provided in the annual report of the Social Security Board of Trustees. The Trustees have forecast that our current Social Security surpluses will turn to deficits by 2017 and that the bonds collecting in the Social Security Trust Fund will be fully redeemed by 2041. At that time, it's anticipated that payroll taxes will be sufficient only to pay 74 percent of expected retirement benefits. Though my legislation would make no other

changes to Social Security, when combined with other reasonable reform ideas, it can provide a component of a comprehensive solution to Social Security's long and shorter-term financial problems.

We've reached an important moment in the life of the Social Security program. It's obvious that we need to bring more money into the system to keep the promises we've made and to allow us to continue to offer some measure of retirement security. Personal investment accounts are one way to bolster the system, yet they have become the object of too much criticism and much disinformation. Many of our constituents have become concerned that the diversion of payroll tax revenue into personal accounts of today's workers will threaten the benefits of current retirees. A campaign is being waged which fosters these fears and may prevent the adoption of even those personal accounts which have no impact on the Social Security Trust Fund.

My bill provides the opportunity for Congress to demonstrate that it can implement a system of personal accounts without diverting payroll taxes and that will build retirement savings for future generations without enriching stock brokers or introducing unacceptable investment risk to American workers. As the success of these personal accounts become apparent, growing numbers of Americans will have greater confidence in this avenue of reform, presenting opportunities to expand the use of personal accounts. The time has come for us to take this important step forward, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think what we are seeing here is certainly a very well-meaning amendment designed to correct a problem in the State of New Jersey; but if it is adopted, what we will find is the law of unintended consequences coming into play.

We have a Federal framework. The goal of that framework is to have competitive bidding and to end up getting the lowest qualified bid to save the taxpayer money and get the work done. Many of these projects cross State lines. Contractors work all over the United States. If we start allowing each State to come up with different bidding procedures and qualifications that contractors have to meet in order to participate in the bidding, it is inevitably going to add to paperwork and end up resulting in higher-cost construction across our country and less for the hard-earned tax dollars that are spent on transportation here in the United States.

We are not arguing there may not be a problem in New Jersey. We are not arguing that it should be cleaned up. We are eager to work with the Members from New Jersey to try to have hearings or to promote investigations, do what we can to help clean up the situation in New Jersey, but not at the expense of weakening the system of competitive bidding nationwide that is designed to promote as efficient a procurement process as possible.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman for being an alert legislator. Technology creates new possibilities for mischief as well as for good. The gentleman has spotted a problem, and we thank the gentleman for calling it to our attention. We support the amendment, and I believe it will be adopted without opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend the gentleman for this amendment and for making the law clear about these courts. They have been an effective program.

We support the amendment, and thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that here we go again, another transportation reauthorization bill before the House of Representatives.

Every Member of this body knows that this bill is long overdue, and I want to assure my colleagues that we struggled mightily during the last Congress to get a long-term reauthorization bill in place, but came up a bit short.

There is some good news in that the guaranteed funding in this bill is a bit higher than the bill authorized last year, and it is in line with the President's budget proposal. This $4 billion increase is largely due to the positive ethanol gas tax changes that were included in last year's corporate tax bill.

That being said, however, the fact remains that many of the challenges we faced during the 108th Congress we continue to face today. The simple fact is that we do not have the resources needed to meet our Nation's transportation needs, both infrastructure needs of our Nation as documented by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the needs of the Members as communicated to our committee, representing needs of areas all across our Nation.

I believe that this is very shortsighted and that all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, can and should support a strong infrastructure program that pays back so much in terms of economic development, international competitiveness, safety, mobility, and improved quality of life. A first-rate infrastructure is essential to a vibrant, growing economy; and in fact, we as a Nation are in danger of falling behind since, in real terms, our Federal investment in infrastructure is falling behind.

Our Governors, mayors, county executives, business leaders, labor and other groups all know this. The Chamber of Commerce has teamed up with a diverse group of State and local governments, business and labor groups under the Americans for Transportation Mobility coalition to highlight the importance of transportation investment to businesses and, in fact, to local communities as well.

Across this country, we have seen at the State and local level citizens voting in referenda to increase State sales taxes or issue bonds to devote more resources to transportation. They see on a daily basis how we are falling behind.

Coincidentally, today the American Society of Civil Engineers issues its 2005 report card for America's infrastructure. For transportation, the grade for roads is worsened from D+, already rather low, to D. Transit decreases from a C- to a D+.

Currently, we rely on the 18.3 cent gas tax, which has not been increased for over 10 years since 1993, and truck taxes to fuel highway and most transit spending at the Federal level. I am pleased that the bill before us takes steps to look at the next generation of financing for the building of roads and transit.

As cars become more fuel efficient or use alternative fuels or other environmentally beneficial fuels, all of which are, of course, good things that should be encouraged, we see less revenue coming in to the Highway Trust Fund. The gas tax is meant to be a surrogate for road usage and is the standard for the user-pay system of our Federal highway program, but I am afraid that we are using a 20th-century benchmark in the 21st century. H.R. 3 takes real concrete steps to move us toward modernizing and updating how we finance our Nation's roads.

The bill before us does differ from H.R. 3550 in that we have made revisions relating to the donor State issue. The ``scope'' issue has been addressed so that, for example, high priority projects are now once again covered under the Minimum Guarantee program, a major change from the bill last year, and other improvements have been made as well.

As it has been noted, this issue will continue to be addressed as we are in conference, and this is not the final resolution for this particular issue. This is my fifth transportation bill since joining the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and this is always the most complicated issue to resolve.

While I wish the funding levels were higher, nevertheless every State will see an increase in its funding. The bill includes programs for safety: infrastructure safety on the road, work safety, motor carrier safety, and behavioral safety.

Harley Davidson is headquartered in my State, and we have several provisions addressing motorcycle safety.

Motorcycle safety grants are authorized, and I encourage States to look at using these and section 402 funds to address impaired driving, which is a great cause of concern.

H.R. 3 will facilitate the movement of freight around our Nation, an important element of interstate commerce and a primary Federal interest in transportation. It will allow us to meet the needs of emerging trade corridors in the post-interstate construction era and other projects that have regional national significance yet overwhelm the financial capabilities of any one State.

We retain funding for transit at the traditional split and include programs that will help States meet the mobility needs of both urban and rural communities and improve transportation services for the elderly and disabled.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for giving me the opportunity to address these issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a hardworking member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have met with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) and spoken with him several times on the issue of legislative language that would allow $100 million from the Florida Department of Transportation for the MIC to be used as part of the non- Federal match for other transit corridors. He has expressed his strong commitment to this language. I will be traveling to Miami soon to see the project firsthand. We will continue to work on this issue during conference. I look forward to the chance to visit Miami and better understand the project and the need for this language.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would respond by saying we appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this to the attention of the chairman and myself. The chairman and I will continue to work with the gentlewoman on this issue as we continue to proceed to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), a senior member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

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

I would just observe that this is a work in progress. As my colleague knows, in the last Congress, the line was $256, now it is $283.9. So it is a work in progress.

And it is a recommendation of the President's advisors, it is not directly from the President. He has expressed a number of times his interest in working with us to help have a robust and affordable infrastructure investment here in our country, because we owe it to our children and to our economy to do that.

So I am hoping we can continue working on a tripartisan basis, as we have on our committee, but also with the administration and with the other body and their representatives as this process moves forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from East Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a valued senior member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to urge all Members to vote for this bill when it reaches final passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, Rep. Paul Kanjorski and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to establish a program of limited tax credits and tax deductions to get average Americans more involved in the political process. This bill, the Citizens Involvement in Campaigns (CIVIC) Act, will broaden the base of political contributors and limit the influence of big money donors in federal elections.

We need to take a fresh look at innovative approaches to campaign finance reform, with special attention paid to ideas that encourage, and not restrict, greater participation in our campaigns. Toward this end, I have been advocating tax credits and deductions for small political contributions for many years. An updated tax credit system would be a simple and effective means of balancing the influence of big money donors and bringing individual contributors back to our campaigns. The impact of this counterweight will reduce the burden of raising money, as well as the appearance of impropriety that accompanies the money chase.

Most would agree that the ideal way to finance political campaigns is through a broad base of donors. But, as we are all painfully aware, the economic realities of modern-day campaigning lead many candidates to focus most of their efforts on collecting funds from a few large donors. This reality alienates many Americans from the political process.

The concept of empowering small donors is not a new idea. For example, from 1972 to 1986, the federal government offered a tax credit for small political contributions. This provided an incentive for average Americans to contribute to campaigns in small amounts while simultaneously encouraging politicians to solicit donations from a larger pool of contributors. Currently, six geographically and politically diverse states (Oregon, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Arkansas, and Arizona) offer their own tax credits for political contributions. These state-level credits vary in many respects, but all share the same goal of encouraging average Americans to become more involved.

The CIVIC Act can begin the process of building this counterweight for federal elections. This bill is designed to encourage Americans who ordinarily do not get involved in politics beyond casting a vote every two or four years (that is, if they bother to vote at all) to become more active participants in our political process.

The CIVIC Act will reestablish and update the discontinued federal tax credit. Taxpayers can choose between a 100% tax credit for political contributions to federal candidates or national political parties (limited to $200 per taxable year), or a 100% tax deduction (limited to $600 per taxable year). Both limits, of course, are doubled for joint returns. As long as political parties and candidates promote the existence of these credits, the program can have a real impact and aid in making elections more grassroots affairs than they are now.

A limited tax credit for political contributions can be a bipartisan, cost-efficient method for helping balance the influence of large money donors in the American electoral process. Instead of driving away most Americans from participation in political life, we can invite them in. It seems to me that this will be a fruitful way to clean up our system, while at the same time convincing Americans that they actually have a meaningful stake in elections.

Mr. Speaker, today, with my colleague, Congressman Rob Andrews, I am introducing the Employee Changing Room Privacy Act.

This legislation would prohibit the video or audio monitoring of an employee in any area on an employer's premises where an employee changes clothing.

Unfortunately, there have been a number of cases where employers have been caught engaging in secret surveillance via video or audio equipment of their employees in these situations on the job site.

For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that 19 locomotive engineers sued their employer in Oakland County (Michigan) Circuit Court, charging that their employer had hidden a camera in a locker- room exit sign. A worker at a State college was shocked to discover that her employer had secretly videotaped her changing her clothes in her office after work. A waitress at a restaurant was spied on in the employee changing room when she got dressed for work.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples of the conduct that the legislation Congressman Andrews and I are introducing today is intended to prevent. The Employee Changing Room Privacy Act would help ensure that workers can go to work without wondering whether their employer has hidden a video camera in the bathroom or a microphone in the office ceiling.

Under the Employee Changing Room Privacy Act, an employer who violates the prohibition against video or audio monitoring of any area on an employer's premises where workers change clothing would be liable to the U.S. Government for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Labor to seek injunctive relief against an employer so as to stop future violations of the prohibitions contained in the legislation.

Enactment of the Employee Changing Room Privacy Act would strengthen the right to privacy at a time when the growing use of surveillance technologies at the workplace has endangered this most fundamental of American values.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to increase the disclosure requirements for telephone ``push polls.'' As many candidates for public office have learned through personal experience, these push polls are not legitimate telephone surveys, but campaign devices designed to smear a candidate under the guise of a standard opinion poll.

Imagine a voter, who has been identified as a supporter of candidate X, being asked in a survey if this support would continue if it was learned that candidate X was guilty of a terrible indiscretion or an outright crime. It doesn't matter whether the allegations are true because the idea that candidate X is somehow unfit for office has been planted successfully. This is a telephone push poll, or ``smear'' poll.

My legislation, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2005, combats this practice by exposing it to the light of day. Specifically, the bill requires that each participant in a federal election poll be told the identity of the survey's sponsor whenever at least 1,200 households are included. It also requires further disclosures when a survey's results are not to be released to the public. In this case, the cost of the poll and the sources of its funding must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, along with a count of the households contacted and a transcript of the questions asked.

The Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2005 is a simple bill. It will not hinder legitimate polling, nor will it burden polling firms with excessive regulations. What this bill does do, however, is regulate smear polls for what they are--campaign activities, and questionable ones at that. This legislation is noncontroversial and should be bipartisan, and its passage will make campaigns for federal office a little bit cleaner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to increase the disclosure requirements for telephone push polls. My bill, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2005, uses the light of public disclosure to lift the darkness surrounding these smear polls, which are a campaign device to spread disinformation about candidates under the cover of a legitimate poll.

They are not, however, real polls. Their only purpose is to create a negative image among the voting public without leaving a visible trace. My bill combats this obnoxious practice by requiring increased disclosure for polls when more than 1,200 households are included.

The time has come to regulate smear polls for what they are, a campaign tactic, and make those who employ this tactic take full responsibility for their actions.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Initially, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for over 2 years of work on the important legislation that the rule makes in order.

I am pleased that this conference agreement includes a new provision that is similar to bipartisan legislation I sponsored with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to help provide specialized textbooks to students with visual disabilities. The law we are reauthorizing today, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requires that all disabled students be provided with educational opportunities. For students with visual disabilities, this includes access to specialized instructional materials, such as braille, large print and audio textbooks. Translating a textbook into these successful formats, however, is a cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive process for States and school districts. As a result, visually impaired students oftentimes receive their textbooks long after school has started and can be needlessly left behind their sighted peers.

The legislation before us today will help solve this problem. It creates a centralized clearinghouse that States and local school districts can use to obtain electronic copies of textbooks to be translated into the appropriate format for visually impaired students. That is a simple solution that will make a big difference in the quality of education provided to visually impaired students. I commend my colleagues for the work they have done to include this provision in this legislation and urge support of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join in this tribute to the many years of public service and the more than 20 years of service here in the House of our colleague Bill Lipinski.

I have had the privilege of serving with Bill on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for many years. During this Congress, he has served as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. Together, we had to navigate through the often frustrating, confusing and twisting course of the transportation bill reauthorization effort this year and last. Bill has always been a steady partner and a strong defender of the program. He certainly hasn't been reluctant to voice his strong support for increased investment in transportation. He is a great fighter, and we have been lucky to have him on our side during this particular fight. I have valued his advice and counsel these past two years as together we have worked to produce a transportation program that moves our country forward.

Beyond our work together on the Subcommittee, we have worked together on other issues, such as the expansion of O'Hare and many years fighting the whistle ban to protect our towns that had developed around the railroad tracks crisscrossing through our districts.

Apart from the Committee activities, Bill has been a tireless advocate for his constituents. He was born on the southwest side of Chicago, and he truly knows and understands his district. Prior to coming to Washington, Bill was a Chicago City alderman and he still is a Ward committeeman--a good education for any member of this House!

So I want to acknowledge Bill's courage, his strength in standing by his convictions, and his love for the City of Chicago. He has had a real impact, and his successes can be seen all over the city--whether riding the ``el'' or landing on a plane at Midway.

I wish him and his wife, Rose Marie, all the best on his retirement. He has been a valuable member of the House, and we will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join in this tribute to the many years of public service and the more than 20 years of service here in the House of our colleague Bill Lipinski.

I have had the privilege of serving with Bill on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for many years. During this Congress, he has served as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. Together, we have had to navigate through the often frustrating, confusing and twisting course of the transportation bill reauthorization effort this year and last. Bill has always been a steady partner and a strong defender of the program. He certainly hasn't been reluctant to voice his strong support for increased investment in transportation. He is a great fighter, and we have been lucky to have him on our side during this particular fight. I have valued his advice and counsel these past two years as together we have worked to produce a transportation program that moves our country forward.

Beyond our work together on the Subcommittee, we have worked together on other issues, such as the expansion of O'Hare and many years fighting the whistle ban to protect our towns that had developed around the railroad tracks crisscrossing through our districts.

Apart from the Committee activities, Bill has been a tireless advocate for his constituents. He was born on the southwest side of Chicago, and he truly knows and understands his district. Prior to coming to Washington, Bill was a Chicago City alderman and he still is a Ward committeeman--a good education for any member of this House!

So I want to acknowledge Bill's courage, his strength in standing by his convictions, and his love for the city of Chicago. He has had a real impact, and his successes can be seen all over the city--whether riding the ``el'' or landing on a plane at Midway.

I wish him and his wife, Rose Marie, all the best on his retirement. He has been a valuable member of the House, and we will miss him.