Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, with my colleague, Congressman Rob Andrews, I am introducing the Employee Freedom from Invasion of 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 Freedom from Invasion of 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 Freedom from Invasion of 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 United States 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 Freedom from Invasion of 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, I rise in support of the legislation before us.

H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, part V, continues the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier, and surface transportation research programs for 8 months of fiscal year 2005, expiring on May 31, 2005. Fiscal year 2004 is completed in this extension as well. The transportation programs under all previous extensions will be continued under this extension.

This is, we hope, the final short-term extension of the surface transportation programs' authorization. We have gotten extremely close to a fair and broadly accepted conclusion to the House-Senate conference on our multiyear authorization bill, but a stopgap measure is needed, once again, to give us time to finalize this deal.

This short-term extension is a ``must-pass'' bill. If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President today, new highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to states, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will end.

H.R. 5183 provides more than $30 billion in new funding authority, which reflects 8 months' worth--or two-thirds of the funding authorization levels the House approved for fiscal year 2005 in TEA LU,

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I would hope that we not pass this motion immediately. I understand the point that is being made, and it is perfectly reasonable. But the fact is that we are currently operating under a continuing resolution. It expires at midnight tonight, and if we do not get this measure through the Senate and to the President, who is down in Florida on other business, before that time, some of the money that would otherwise be spent on transportation, some of the jobs that would otherwise exist in the transportation sector will be lost.

And the motion is very short. It simply changes the numbers in the bill by 12 and a fraction percent. But, in fact, trying to figure out how that would work in practice and the consequences of it, it would be anything but short. This would endanger the ability to continue our transportation programs.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not talking about the mechanics of running the numbers. I am talking about the mechanics of operating the political machinery in order to get something that, in fact, would be passed by the Senate and signed by the President.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 31, line 6, beginning with ``provided further'' through line 19.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 162 on page 39, line 1 through 23.

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

Mr. Chairman, was the previous point of order against the language of the entire paragraph?

Including all of page 41 and page 42 through line 16?

And page 42 through line 16, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 43, line 20.

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 reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I do not.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 174 on page 48, line 25, through page 49, line 15.

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

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against this section.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 177 on page 50, line 7 through line 15.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous consent request, at what point in the subsequent proceedings would it be in order to raise points of order? Could they be done at any time, or is there any particular time that they would have to be raised?

And they should be made forthwith?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 505.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 505 on page 117, line 7 through line 10.

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

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the language on page 148, lines 11 through 21.

The language referred to constitutes a violation of House rule XXI which prohibits provisions, changing existing law in a general appropriations bill, especially since it contains the language ``or any other act,'' which clearly changes existing law, and includes a proviso relating to a specific determination by the agency which also changes substantive law. This is legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to extend funding for our nation's highway, transit and safety programs. This bill will complete funding for the fiscal year and ensure that state transportation programs continue to receive the necessary federal funds to maintain and build our Nation's critical infrastructure.

We are here today because we still are unable to reach an agreement on a level of spending that will meet the various demands that have been placed on us: Provide growth in funding for all states; improve the rate of return for donor states; ensure that donee states do not take too much of a hit; provide significant funding to build new corridors to meet emerging trade traffic; provide help to states that are overwhelmed by massive but critical projects that each can reach up to $1 billion in costs; and produce a conference report that will be signed by the President.

This seems to be an impossible situation, but I believe House and Senate conferees have been making a good faith effort to resolve this impasse--but we are not there yet.

I know that there is strong support in the Congress for a good, robust transportation program.

We know that transportation spending from the Highway Trust Fund is a good investment that is necessary in order to maintain and build a first-class transportation network. This is investment that leads to economic growth and prosperity, that provides needed jobs, that assists in the development of transit projects that moves millions of people each day, and that improves unsafe conditions on our highways--thereby saving thousands of lives.

So I urge passage of this bill so that States will continue to receive funds as we here in Washington press on in our efforts to ensure that we have a long-term program that meets our Nation's transportation needs.

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to extend funding for our nation's highway, transit and safety programs. This bill will complete funding for the fiscal year and ensure that state transportation programs continue to receive the necessary federal funds to maintain and build our nation's critical infrastructure.

We are here today because we still are unable to reach an agreement on a level of spending that will meet the various demands that have been placed on us: provide growth in funding for all states; improve the rate of return for donor states; ensure that donee states do not take too much of a hit; provide significant funding to build new corridors to meet emerging trade traffic; provide help to states that are overwhelmed by massive but critical projects that each can reach up to $1 billion in costs; and produce a conference report that will be signed by the President who publicly supports a bill that is $20 billion below the lowest of the two bills passed by this House and the Senate.

This seems to be an impossible situation, but I believe House and Senate conferees have been making a good faith effort to resolve this impasse--but we are not there yet.

I know that there is strong support in the Congress for a good, robust transportation program.

We know that transportation spending from the Highway Trust Fund is a good investment that is necessary in order to maintain and build a first-class transportation network. This is investment that leads to economic growth and prosperity, that provides needed jobs, that assists in the development of transit projects that moves millions of people each day, and that improves unsafe conditions on our highways--thereby saving thousands of lives.

So I urge passage of this bill so that States will continue to receive funds as we here in Washington press on in our efforts to ensure that we have a long-term program that meets our nation's transportation needs.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 144) expressing the sense of Congress that Dinah Washington should be recognized for her achievements as one of the most talented vocalists in American popular music history.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 144.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 144.

Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 144, which expresses the sense of Congress that Dinah Washington should be recognized for her achievements as one of the most talented vocalists in American popular music history.

Born in 1924, Dinah Washington was a singer and performer whose early influence and focus was gospel music and spirituals. She began touring the country in 1940, was hired to sing with Lionel Hampton's big band, and signed her first recording contract in 1943.

Dinah Washington was recording with jazz stars and leaders in the industry by 1948 and was a full-fledged pop music star by the late 1950s after recording the ballad ``What a Difference a Day Makes.''

Throughout her career, Dinah Washington recorded in jazz, blues, rhythm and blues, and pop and was considered a preeminent figure and an enormously gifted vocalist in each genre. After dominating the charts in the late 1940s and 1950s, Dinah Washington died on December 14, 1963. By today's measure, she would have been considered a tremendous crossover superstar.

House Concurrent Resolution 144 is simple and straightforward. It expresses the sense of Congress that Dinah Washington should be recognized for her versatility, remarkable music talent, and for influence on female vocalists in jazz, blues, rhythm and blues, pop, and gospel. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 704) congratulating the California State University, Fullerton Titans baseball team for winning the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I College World Series.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 704.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the author of the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honored to participate in this special order recognizing the many years of dedicated service to the 1st District of Nebraska and to our country by our good friend and colleague, Doug Bereuter.

Doug is one of the hardest working, dedicated and principled Members to serve in this House. In his quiet way, he has successfully worked to bring about significant reforms and accomplishments in many areas. Through it all, he has done so with the highest moral character, unquestioned integrity, and has been true to his convictions. Doug has been an example to us all by working in an effective and bipartisan manner, more interested in policy and legislation than scoring political points. He considers each issue on the merits and isn't afraid to follow his own convictions and do what he believes is right. If Doug proposes a legislative initiative, you can count on it being well-considered and carefully thought out.

Perhaps his strength of character and principled behavior comes from his Midwestern Nebraska roots that go back five generations. He has served Nebraska and his constituents well, never losing sight of the special needs and concerns of his district. Doug has been a leader in many varied initiatives that have benefited his constituents and the country. He has been active in promoting a national trail program that improves the quality of life for all Americans. As a colleague on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I know he has been diligent in tending to the various transportation needs of his district. While not a Member of the Agriculture Committee, he nonetheless has been active in promoting proposals to aid farmers.

Just this year, the Financial Services Committee and the House have acted on other initiatives he has spearheaded for many years, including flood insurance reform and home loan guarantee programs.

Perhaps the area for which Doug has become most recognized here in the House and, literally, around the world is that of foreign affairs. He is recognized as one of the hardest working members of the International Relations Committee and has served admirably as Chairman of the Asian Subcommittee and the Europe Subcommittee.

For many years he was the Chairman of the House delegation to the British American Parliamentary Group and remains an active member today. He is currently Chairman of the U.S. House Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly as well as President of the NATO PA itself, positions that require countless hours of work and effort on a continuing basis. He is a co-founder of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that was essential in winning permanent normal trade relations with China while ensuring that we continue to monitor human rights, guard against prison labor exports and put in place other related safeguards. The many other boards, commissions and task forces he has served on over the years are too numerous a to mention.

While I regret Doug leaving the House, he is undoubtedly well suited for his next position as president of The Asia Foundation. He is keenly aware of the increasingly important role of Asia and in the benefit to Asia and to the U.S. in helping to encourage growth and prosperity from within the region. The goal of the Asian Foundation is the ``development of a peaceful, prosperous, and open Asia-Pacific region.'' It accomplishes this through supporting programs that help improve governance, economic reform and development, increased participation of women, and other internal reforms. I know all of these are principles that Doug shares, and he will provide strong and steady guidance to the organization.

I would be remiss if I didn't note another important ingredient to Doug's--success--lovely wife Louise. An accomplished artist and musician, Louise has been a loyal and steadfast partner as Doug has faced his many responsibilities. I will long remember one night on a recent BAPG trip to Ditchley Park outside Oxford. Louise played one song after another on the piano as the rest of us struggled to sing along. I'm afraid our vocal abilities were no match for her musical skills. But it was a lot of fun, and that is how I will always think of Doug and Louise--good and decent people who know how to enjoy life.

So I wish them well as they move to San Francisco and begin this new phase of their life together. Doug can be proud of his service here in the House, an I am proud to have served with him and to consider him a friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for the time, and I assure my senior minority leader on the committee that it is often darkest before the dawn, and I think there will be a dawn before long for transportation in America. I certainly hope so. One way or another, we will meet our Nation's needs.

I rise in support of this bill to extend to July 30 current highway transit and highway safety programs. We have done it several times in the past. We are bringing this bill to the floor today in order to ensure that these programs continue to function and that funds be made available to the States while House and Senate conferees proceed with negotiations on a long-term bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is important we have a multiyear bill that provides adequate and needed resources to invest in our Nation's transportation systems. In preparation for this reauthorization effort, I and many of my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as has been pointed out, traveled to meetings with Governors, mayors, local officials all across our country. Each of them showed us the pressing transportation needs that their cities and States have in order to improve safety, reduce congestion, and provide for a first- class transportation network that is essential for economic growth and opportunity.

There are many demands being placed upon us as we seek to reauthorize TEA-21. Donor States want to see improvement in their rate of return on Federal highway dollars. Members from States with trade corridors want to see adequate investment to construct needed roads like I-69, I-49 and Ports-to-Planes, to name only a few.

Cities and States that need to complete massive projects, such as the multibillion dollar viaduct project in Seattle or the rail consolidation project in Chicago, find themselves overwhelmed by their financial costs and are seeking Federal help, and almost every Member of this body has approached the committee regarding pressing transportation projects that are crucial in their district.

All of these are legitimate goals, but we must have the resources if we are, in fact, to respond.

As we continue negotiations to resolve these and other questions, I urge the approval of this extension so that needed funds can continue to flow to the States and so work on critical transportation projects can move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize one of my constituents who is serving as our guest chaplain today, the Reverend David Lauer. Reverend Lauer is the campus minister and Marjorie and Richard D. Leach Professor of Theological Studies of Lakeland College in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. At Lakeland, he teaches in the areas of Old and New Testament, liturgy, contemporary ethics and contemporary theology. Reverend Lauer just completed his 36th year as coach of the men's varsity tennis team and has been inducted into Lakeland's Athletic Hall of Fame.

David received his bachelor of arts degree from Heidelberg College and his master of divinity degree from Eden Theological Seminary. He will celebrate 40 years of marriage to Lynne Jenkins next year.

I know my colleagues join me in welcoming Reverend Lauer to the House today.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of real loss that I first heard the news that Charlie Johnson was leaving after so many years of dedicated service to all of us in the House, and I want to take this occasion to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to him today.

I personally take great comfort in seeing Charlie each day at his post on the Speaker's podium, monitoring our proceedings, guiding the Member who has been appointed to preside over the House, and making the determinations and rulings needed to keep this House running in a manner that respects the rights and the privileges of all Members. I know that we are in good hands.

The person who serves as Parliamentarian influences the daily activities of the House, and though not known by many Americans, has had a great impact on some of the most dramatic moments that have occurred in this Chamber. From his perch, he literally has a front seat to history. I am sure at times he found himself in situations he never expected; but through it all, his behavior was beyond reproach.

Perhaps what impressed me most as I got to know Charlie over the years was his commitment to and interest in parliamentary procedure, not only here in the U.S. but in other legislative bodies as well. Charlie often traveled to consult with others and has participated in conferences and hearings explaining our rules and procedures.

Speaking from my own experience, he joined us on trips to London as part of the British-American Parliamentary Group. He spent at least part of the time consulting with his counterpart in the British Parliament regarding a cooperative project on parliamentary procedures and comparing the two institutions.

Charlie was an educator. In addition to writing and editing books about parliamentary procedure, he spent a lot of time meeting with school kids and others to explain how our House works and the importance of parliamentary procedure and its literal impact on the history of our House and this Nation.

As he leaves us, we can thank him too for the way he ran the Office of Parliamentarian and mentored the deputy and assistant Parliamentarians under his direction. His deputy, John Sullivan, will become the Parliamentarian next month. This also reflects well on the standards Charlie set for his office.

I will miss Charlie, but I will value always his integrity, professionalism, his attention given to each Member no matter what party they may have represented, his principled advice and conduct, his love and respect for the House and its traditions, and, most importantly, for his friendship.

Mr. Speaker, as a long time supporter of Hmong veterans and their families in Wisconsin and across the United States, I am pleased to be a cosponsor and express my support for House Resolution 402 which calls for democratic and human rights reforms in Laos.

Many Americans don't realize the vital role Hmong soldiers played in the Vietnam War. School history books often ignore that before U.S. soldiers even landed in Vietnam or Laos, CIA agents arrived to train young Hmong men and women to fight against their oppressors. These brave Hmong fought valiantly for democracy and for freedom for their people. They rescued downed American pilots and took bullets that otherwise would have found their way to the bodies of American soldiers.

In defense of their country and in service to U.S. troops, nearly 40,000 Hmong troops were killed, approximately 58,000 were injured in combat and more than 2,500 are still missing in action today. These numbers don't begin to represent the thousands of Hmong soldiers and civilians hunted down and massacred by communist forces after the U.S. armed forces began their withdrawal from the region in 1975. The survivors lost many loved ones and lost their homeland. The United States owes these veterans a great deal.

Edgar Buell, a former senior U.S. official working with the Hmong during the war years, best summed up their dedication to the U.S. and western democratic principles when he said, ``Everyone of them that died, that was an American back home that didn't die. Somebody in nearly every Hmong family was either fighting or died from fighting . . . They became refugees because we . . . encouraged them to fight for us. I promised them myself: `Have no fear, we will take care of you.' ''

Yet, we hear reports that the persecution of the Hmong in Laos continues to this day, with charges of starvation, families being separated, and other acts of violence.

Over the last twenty years, thousands of Hmong have settled in Wisconsin and other places across the United States, sharing their tragic history and brave sacrifices with their fellow Americans. On their behalf, we must fulfill Edgar Buell's promise and encourage the government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to stop civil rights violations against the Hmong and others, and allow free and open political activities in Laos.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4219) 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

The legislation now before us will continue for an additional 2 months the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier and surface transportation research programs. These programs will be continued under current law program structures and conditions.

This bill is necessary in order to give the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and our colleagues in the Senate time to conference our two versions of the multiyear surface transportation bill.

H.R. 4219 provides over $31 billion in new funding authority, which reflects 9 months' worth, or nine-twelfths of the budget authority and associated outlays in the 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed earlier this year.

As the House knows, we recently passed by 357 votes H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users. This bill will help the country maintain and begin to improve our aging and deteriorating transportation infrastructure.

Although H.R. 3550 is funded at a much lower level than it was originally introduced, $275 billion in guaranteed funding instead of the $375 billion the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure supported, it is a balanced and good bill that will help stimulate and support the economy, decrease congestion and make our highways safer.

Until H.R. 3550 can be conferenced with the Senate-passed bill, this 2-month extension through June 30 is a must-pass bill. If we do not pass this bill and send it to the President before Friday of this week, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees: the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

If we do not pass this extension, new highway projects will be shelved, States will not be reimbursed the Federal share of projects, safety grants will not be provided to States, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at our borders will suffer.

It is crucial that H.R. 4219 be passed by both the House and Senate and delivered to the President by April 30, if not before. Our economy cannot withstand the shutdown of the national surface transportation programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

I wish I was standing here on the floor today urging passage of a conference report meeting our Nation's transportation needs. Instead, I urge my colleagues to support a further 2-month extension of the existing program so that conferees can be appointed and we can work with the Senate toward the end of meeting our Nation's transportation needs. This is what we need to do under the circumstances, and do it promptly.

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. 4219.