Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise with disappointment in the lack of pro-energy and pro-consumer provisions contained in the Democrat energy bill being considered on the House floor today. I strongly oppose passage of the House Amendment to H.R. 6 and urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this bill. We should work in a bipartisan manner to pass real solutions for America's growing energy needs.

The American economy has ups and downs. But overall it continues to grow, producing jobs for American workers. To keep pace with our economy, more reliable and sustainable sources of energy are needed. Conservation, innovative and efficient energy technologies, renewable forms of energy and of course traditional sources of energy all must play a role in our energy future.

I am pleased the bill included an increase in fuel efficiency standards from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. As a cosponsor of H.R. 2927 that would increase the corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards for automobiles, I believe we must not waste any more time in making our vehicles more fuel efficient. I support increasing the CAFE standards and hope we can work together with the private sector to achieve this worthy goal.

Unfortunately, the Democrat's closed-door energy bill containing more than 1,000 pages is not the kind of solution the American people deserve. Rather than work together to pass a more complete and comprehensive plan to address our energy needs, Democrat leadership has chosen to forego their pledge to work with Republicans on important policy matters. The result is an energy bill that will lead to higher electric utility bills, drive up gasoline prices at the pump, discriminately raise taxes on manufacturers of domestic energy and depress exploration efforts to find additional sources of domestic energy.

The bill fails to include proven, reliable energy production methods such as nuclear energy for lowering emissions into our atmosphere. Instead, the House Amendment to H.R. 6 mandates a one-size-fits-all Renewable Portfolio Standard for some electric utility companies while exempting other electric utilities. I support utility companies investing in and offering renewable energy to customers, and I support incentives for increased production of renewable energy. Many Kansas farmers and landowners are already participants in wind and bio fuel production, and Kansas has potential to do even more.

But Congress must exercise great caution when attempting to mandate levels of renewable fuels that must be used by electric power companies. Many of our Nation's electric companies are presently investing billions of dollars in renewable energy projects--not because they are mandated by the Federal Government, but because market forces have led them to do so. By mandating higher levels of renewable energy for power generation than the market naturally supports, ratepayers are going to be stuck with higher electric bills.

I cannot think of a single constituent who has asked me to support higher electric bills. This Democrat bill is not an energy solution that is good for Kansas, and it is not a good solution for America.

Great harm will particularly fall upon America's poor and middle class customers as a result of increased electric rates. Senior citizens who are living on fixed incomes and families on tight budgets should not be forced to suffer because of ill-thought Federal mandates on select electric utilities and their customers.

Another section of the House Amendment to H.R. 6 mandates a Federal Renewable Energy Standard that will require unrealistic quantities of biofuel. For example, the Democrat energy bill mandates that 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel be included in our fuel supply by 2010. However, commercially viable production of cellulosic fuel is only projected to be 27 million gallons by 2010. As a strong supporter of cellulosic biofuel, I hope American ingenuity will help us surpass current projections. The Federal Government should encourage private- sector innovation that has long been a hallmark of America's history.

But the Federal Government should not be mandating on the private sector requirements that are not commercially tested and far exceed industry projections. Reckless mandates will result in increased fuel costs for consumers.

I am also disappointed that the House Amendment to H.R. 6 contains more than $21 billion in tax increases that will negatively impact American jobs. By raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, we are driving up manufacturing costs making domestic companies less competitive. Raising taxes on oil and gas companies will not reduce prices at the pump, and it certainly will not help ease our dependence on foreign oil. If anything, it will make

us more dependent on foreign oil and will cause energy prices to increase.

Raising taxes on the energy sector will inevitably be passed to consumers at the pump. If the Democrat energy tax increase is passed, motorists will consider today's $3 gasoline to be a cheap deal. Families and small businesses in Kansas do not want higher fuel costs, which is why I refuse to accept a plan that raises the price of gasoline.

By raising billions of dollars through tax increases imposed on the oil and gas manufacturing industry, but not raising taxes on other manufacturing sectors, Congress picks winners and losers and American manufacturing jobs suffer.

Instead of encouraging more domestic energy exploration, production and investment, the Democrat energy bill instead makes these activities more expensive for American companies trying to supply America with energy.

This bill is woefully inadequate when it comes to American energy independence. It harms consumers by raising energy costs. And it wreaks havoc on American manufacturing jobs.

I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending Alternative Minimum Tax relief to millions of American taxpayers. Congress never intended for the AMT to hit so many people. The Senate has already passed a clean bill to provide a one-year AMT patch for the 2007 tax year. I urge my colleagues in the House to do the same and pass AMT relief for the nearly 20 million new taxpayers who will otherwise be subjected to this tax increase if Congress fails to act.

While I rise in strong support of extending AMT relief, I rise in opposition to the AMT bill being considered on the House floor today. H.R. 4351 would not just provide a one-year AMT patch; it would also permanently raise billions of dollars in new taxes on other citizens. Rather than provide a stand-alone patch or offset the costs by reducing federal spending, the Democrat leadership solution is to pay for the AMT fix by raising taxes on other taxpayers.

Instead of debating a bill that will never be signed into law, we should be working together in a bipartisan way to take actions similar to what the Senate has done. Because of the ineffectiveness of Democrat leadership decisions, millions of American taxpayers will either be forced to pay an average of $2,000 more or have their tax refunds delayed next year. A delay in tax refunds could have been avoided by earlier congressional action, and we must act swiftly to ensure the tax increase does not become a reality for millions of American families.

The AMT tax was created nearly 40 years ago to ensure a small number of very wealthy taxpayers would pay a fair portion of taxes. Because the AMT was not indexed for inflation, millions of Americans are now being threatened by the higher AMT tax, which effectively takes back tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 for those taxpayers.

The Federal Government should be finding ways to lower the burden on American taxpayers. Instead, H.R. 4351 would permanently raise taxes. This proposal to address the government's shortsightedness to index the AMT for inflation should be soundly rejected in favor of a permanent AMT fix or a patch that does not raise taxes on others.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 4351 so we can begin consideration of a real solution that we can send to the President for his signature. Providing a one-year AMT fix is the least we can do as an alternative to a permanent solution. The time for partisan tax-shifting games has concluded. Let's put the American people first and defeat this massive tax increase bill.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, Kansas lost a coaching legend. Ed Kriwiel, who passed away in his sleep at the age of 81, coached for more than 50 years in the Wichita area football city league. Mr. Kriwiel was a phenomenal coach. During his head football coaching years he hailed 297 wins, 9 State titles and 8 city league championships. In addition, Mr. Kriwiel spent 2 years coaching at Wichita State University in the late 60s, including 1 year as head coach. He continued coaching high school golf until his passing.

Not only was he a superb athlete and coach, he was a father of nine children and a husband to his wife Mary of 53 years.

Mr. Kriwiel has influenced countless lives through the years--from players to coaches to his ever-growing fan base. I am thankful for all the joy and memories he brought into our lives. He will be greatly missed.

To the Kriwiel family: Thank you for sharing your husband and father with Kansans for so many years. May God bless you. My thoughts and prayers go out to you during this time.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me. I rise in opposition to this bill.

I am really surprised by the procedure we have gone through to get to this point in this legislation. You know, under the underlying bill we had open hearings, we had closed hearings, we looked at a lot of the details and openly debated them and I thought we were making pretty good progress. But then, in the self-enacting rule, we have a whole bunch of new language that is dumped into this bill that has had no hearings.

In fact, section 18 says in this bill now, no rights under the RESTORE Act for undocumented aliens. It says: This Act shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of an alien not permitted to be in the United States.

Undocumented aliens, no rights.

Then we get to what, the rights that the terrorists have in the underlying bill. Section 3 has procedures for authorizing acquisitions of communications, and there are 8 pages telling how we are going to protect the terrorists. They have got some rights protected under this bill.

Then we get to section 4, the emergency authorization. We have 8 more pages explaining how terrorists have more rights than undocumented aliens right here in the United States.

So then we listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), who is the former Attorney General of the State of California, and he explains that, through the minimization procedures, that we are actually giving terrorists more rights than we do our own U.S. common criminals.

So what is the deal with this? It is really a mess. You have got terrorists at a higher status than undocumented aliens that are here in America and a lot of them just trying to make a living, and then you have got a higher standard for terrorists than you do for our own criminals. Now, why don't we balance things out here? Why don't we balance things out? You have tried to push this thing through without hearings, you have hodgepodged it together, and it truly is a mess. We ought to send this back to committee and do the right thing on this.

We want to protect the rights of American citizens, and we think that humans have a certain set of rights, too. But this bill does not provide it. It has mixed standards. It is a mess, and I think we should vote it down.

Madam Speaker, our Nation has over 1,000,000 blind and low-vision veterans, and those numbers continue to rise. The Department of Defense estimates that 16 percent of those injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom suffer from severe vision loss. An additional 10-12 million Americans have blind and low vision.

Prior to the creation of the Braille American flag, the American flag was not accessible to the blind. This flag, created by the Kansas Braille Transcription Institute in Wichita, Kansas, has been specially designed in a way that informs the blind of the full color of the American flag, 13 stripes, and 50 stars on the blue field. Additionally, this tactile flag bears the Pledge of Allegiance in both raised print and grade one braille.

Today, I am introducing legislation that calls for the Army to place a Braille American flag at Arlington National Cemetery. Arlington National Cemetery is a national place of remembrance and honor for our Nation's veterans and is visited by an estimated 4 million people annually. Placing the Braille American flag there would bring honor to our Nation's blind community and allow our blind veterans to ``see'' the American flag again.

Madam Speaker, I am honored this legislation has been endorsed by the Blind Veterans of America, and I look forward to quick action by the Congress on the bill. We owe a huge debt of gratitude towards those who have served, and this simple action will mean much to our patriotic blind veterans. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort in placing the Braille American flag at Arlington National Cemetery.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish ``a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.''

Although I join with all my colleagues in abhorrence to bigotry and discrimination, this disingenuous and vaguely-constructed overhaul of labor law is inconsistent with the free exercise of religion and weaken the fundamental Defense of Marriage Act.

The right to the free exercise of religion found in the Constitution, and as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), must be firmly upheld. It is a cornerstone of our Nation's founding and our future. Our Government must not take any action that unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. Unfortunately, the ENDA does not live up to this constitutional standard. America's churches, synagogues, and religious non-profit organizations must maintain the right to employ those that share their particular religious or moral worldview. Although the sponsors of this act claim that the religious exemptions found in the legislation are adequate, they are simply not strong enough to pass constitutional muster or fulfill legislative intent in the RFRA.

Madam Speaker, ENDA would also weaken the landmark Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by giving Federal statutory significance to same- sex marriage rights under State law. Federal law states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Maintaining DOMA is essential in defending the sanctity of marriage. However, the passage of ENDA will provide activist judges around the country the legal ammunition to undermine state and federal marriage laws. Courts in New Jersey, Vermont, and Massachusetts have all used state legislation similar to ENDA as a springboard for mandating same-sex marriage or civil unions. In 2005 Kansas overwhelmingly passed the Traditional Marriage Amendment by 70 percent. The people of Kansas have spoken. With the path is so clearly defined in history, it would be irresponsible for Congress to pass ENDA.

Madam Speaker, bigotry and discrimination is clearly wrong. However, tampering with such bedrock legal and constitutional standards such as the freedom of religion and DOMA is not the right solution. I urge my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we must help ensure our communities are protected during times of severe flooding that can lead to loss of life and destroyed homes and businesses. This summer we have witnessed devastating floods all across America, including in central and eastern Kansas. Thousands of my constituents lost their homes and their businesses, many of which have not yet fully recovered.

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 1495) authorizes many new projects that will afford our communities protection from catastrophic flooding for generations to come. It will also help ensure that existing flood control structures are properly cared for so our economy can continue thriving in areas currently protected from floods. We must prepare for the future rather than merely respond to disasters after they occur. Prevention is much better than responding to a natural disaster, especially when loss of life occurs.

A WRDA bill has not been enacted for the past 7 years, which helps explain why the price tag is so significant. While I would have preferred to see a less expensive authorization bill, I believe it is time we move forward with many of the needed flood control projects included in H.R. 1495.

Having witnessed the severe flooding in my district this year, I am reminded of the critical need for flood prevention that saves lives and protects communities. I have seen first-hand what a flooded community looks like when adequate flood control is not provided. And I have seen how well Corps of Engineers levees have worked to keep high floodwaters out of homes and businesses.

This is why I support overriding the President's veto. I would have preferred for a compromise to be reached with the Administration; but in this instance, we need to move forward without further delay in the process. Protecting our homes and businesses from flood waters is a bi- partisan priority that trumps Washington politics.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. I am pleased today to have the privilege of honoring the 2007 National Championship Wichita State University women's bowling team. House Resolution 472 congratulates and commends the Wichita State University's bowling team for winning the 2007 United States Bowling Congress Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship.

Though known for its baseball and lately its basketball teams, the Shockers have had a long tradition of championship bowlers, and last year's team again made the region proud. The Wichita State University's women's bowling team has won eight intercollegiate bowling national championships, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2005, and now 2007, and has advanced to the national tournament a record 31 times.

On April 21, 2007, the Wichita State University's women's bowling team won the 2007 United States Bowling Congress Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament in Wichita by defeating Central Florida University four games to one in the semi-finals and McKendree College of Illinois two games to zero in the finals.

Wichita State University earned the second seed on the day after completing 32 baker games. On day two, the team defeated Ohio State University four games to one in the best of seven series, Purdue University four to one and Newman University four games to two to advance to the semi-finals.

On the final day of the tournament, the Wichita State University women defeated Central Florida University four games to one in the semi-finals and McKendree College two games to zero in the finals to win the national championship at home at Northrock Lanes.

Despite having a top caliber team, the championship was not assured going into the season because the Shockers had lost seven players from their top-ranked team from the 2006 season. The 2007 additions included six new members and three international players, Wichita local freshman Ricki Williams and two transfers. None of the bowlers had been in a championship game before nor a televised game. Yet they did not let the hype overpower them and instead let their talent shine through.

I want to congratulate WSU President Don Beggs and athletic director Jim Schaus for their leadership by creating a great university and an excellent athletic program. Wichita State is blessed to have two coaches, Gordon Vadakin and Mark Lewis, who are themselves members of USBC Hall of Fame. Head coach Gordon Vadakin has coached the team since 1978, leading it to the Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament 29 times and has coached the team to six national titles. Women's coach Mark Lewis and assistant women's coach Kristal Scott directly coached the 2007 WSU women's team to the national championship in Wichita, Kansas.

The 2007 national championship team is comprised of the following members: Daniela Alvarado, Ashley Cox, Elysia Current, Sandra Gongora, Melissa Hurst, Samantha Linder, Emily Maier, Rocio Restrepo, Ricki Williams and Felicia Wong. WSU juniors, Elysia Current and Emily Maier, were named the First Team All-Americans, and Maier was named as the member of the All-Tournament team of the Intercollegiate Bowling Championship Tournament. I also want to thank Amy Skeen of my staff who worked on this resolution and getting it to the floor.

Once again, I am very pleased that today the United States House of Representatives will congratulate and commend the Wichita State University's women's bowling team for winning the 2007 Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament. Go Shox.

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I am extremely concerned about our national security and I am deeply troubled that our intelligence community will be prevented from doing the job they need to do to protect Americans by this bill. For that reason, I strongly oppose the RESTORE Act as it will only further tie the hands of our intelligence community.

If this bill passes, Congress would depart from the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by making it more difficult and cumbersome to gather intelligence on Islamic terrorists. Our most important job here is to provide the tools to those charged with protecting our Nation and keeping us safe from those threats. In the last 6 years we have been kept safe in this country because we have had a sharp edge on the tools that we have been using to peel back the layers of secrecy on terrorists and terrorist organizations.

This bill requires a court order to gather communications when a foreign terrorist in a foreign country tries to contact somebody in the United States. Since 1978, from President Carter to President Clinton, there was never a concern. Yet now, after we have had attacks on our U.S. soil and are well aware there are terrorist cells in our homeland, the Democrats want to prevent the intelligence community from intercepting communications of foreign terrorists.

To my knowledge, no violation of civil rights has occurred in the FISA process. However, as this bill is written, the Democrats have opened the door for alarming violations of civil liberties by requiring the intelligence community to compile a database of reports on the identities of U.S. citizens that have inadvertently been accumulated in the process of gathering information. As the Washington Times noted this morning, apparently pandering to the left-wing blogosphere and the ACLU is a higher priority than the safety of Americans and even American GIs fighting al Qaeda.

Normally, under current guidelines, the intelligence community blacks out all these names and they never get distributed anywhere. They are just simply eliminated from the database. But now, under this bill, we see the Democrats requiring a list be sent to Congress. And we all know that we have had leaks here in Congress. You would think the ACLU would be opposed not only to compiling such a list but distributing it to Congress. We have had leaks related to the way we collect information on individuals through electronic conversations, we have had leaks about how we have e-mails that have been reviewed on terrorist Web sites, we have had leaks that caused our allies in Europe to no longer cooperate when it comes to tracking terrorist financing. For us to give this type of information to Congress would almost certainly guarantee a leak and a violation of the civil liberties of those individuals who it inadvertently picked up in the process of trying to find terrorists working within our country trying to do harm.

This is a bad bill. It goes back and dulls the tools, this edge that we have been using to keep the country safe. If it is passed and it becomes law, I would fear for the safety of this country because dulling the tools that have kept us safe for 6 years would put us in a much more vulnerable position than we are today.

Over 2 months ago, the DNI, Mike McConnell, the man charged with overseeing the intelligence community, urged us to modernize the FISA law. But this does not do it. This sets us backwards.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3432, an excellent bill that commemorates the abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

This year marks a very important anniversary in history--the 200th anniversary of the enactment of the Transatlantic Slave Trade Act. It was in 1807 when then President Thomas Jefferson signed into law this vital Act. Nearly 200 years prior, in 1619, twenty Africans arrived in Jamestown, Virginia aboard a Dutch ship. This was the beginning in America of the atrocity of slavery which unfortunately lasted for more than 2 centuries.

While America was in deep turmoil over the morality of slavery, William Wilberforce, a Member of the U.K. Parliament, led the campaign to abolish the transatlantic slave trade in Britain. This great man was a statesman, an avowed and practicing Christian, and a champion of the underprivileged.

Early on, Wilberforce wrestled with whether he should pursue a calling from God or serve as a driving force in the House of Commons. He successfully accomplished both. Wilberforce was an example of faith in action, modeling that we do not have to abandon our values to be effective in our jobs--whether as a business owner, nurse, mechanic, working mom or Member of Congress.

We must stand up for our beliefs and fight passionately for our causes. We must not betray our values or our faith, and never cease to help those in need. On the 200th anniversary of the 1807 abolition of the U.K. and U.S. slave trade, we should reflect on the greatness of those who stood up for what was right and true--even though it was not popular.

It wasn't until 1865 that slavery in the United States was abolished through the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment. Then President, Abraham Lincoln, helped push the bill through Congress. Earlier in his presidency, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves. He believed this was ``the central act of my administration, and the great event of the nineteenth century.''

While slavery ended, discrimination continued. It is my hope that we will remember the struggles of this great Nation and continue our efforts to stand for what is right. We can build momentum and engage communities to find new ways to improve our culture.

I am honored each day to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and stand faithfully for what is right. It is a privilege to cast my vote in favor of a bill that honors a great moment in our history.

I look forward to today's passage of H.R. 3432.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on September 24, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 891, 892, 893 and 894.

Rollcall vote No. 891 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 193. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 892 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 668. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 893 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H.R. 1199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 894 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 340. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

In addition, on September 25, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 895, 896, 897, and 898.

Rollcall vote No. 895 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H.R. 1400. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 896 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 584. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 897 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 210. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 898 was to suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 663. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I would ask that my statement appear in the appropriate location in the Congressional Record.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for his contributions and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) in helping me through this process of getting recognition to the people of Kansas who have suffered under this flood.

Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of trouble in Kansas this year. Out of our 105 counties, 102 have been declared a disaster at one time or another. It started in January with a 100-year event, an ice storm. We lost a lot of cattle. Power was down in half of the State. It was a very difficult time.

Later on in the year we had a series of tornadoes that were considered another 100-year event. It included a level 5 or T-5 tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas, and the small community of 1,500 was completely wiped out by that tornado.

This was the third wave of natural disaster that has hit Kansas this year. It actually encompassed about 21 counties when it was all said and done. As you heard earlier, we lost 3,100 homes.

I have been in this flood area about five times since the flooding has occurred. I have been through the refinery that is now back up and running. The small community of Coffeyville seemed to be the worst hit. We have had quite a bit of difficulty getting through the problem, complicated by the oil that was spilled into many homes in that area.

Coffeyville resources is in the process of trying to rectify that situation; but I am very pleased that the jobs have never ceased at that refinery. They started the cleanup process right away, and they will continue to remain in that community. It is one of three refineries that we have in Kansas, and it does bring a lot of jobs to the area. It is also unique in that it is one of two refineries in the world that takes the by-product of making petroleum or gasoline from petroleum and it turns it into fertilizer for farmers in the area. So it is a very progressive refinery, and it has been a good source of jobs in that area.

I would like to acknowledge a few people who were very instrumental in bringing that community and other communities, like Independence, Kansas, back to their feet: Independence Mayor Rick Mott; Independence City Manager Paul Sasse; Independence Police Chief Ken Parker; Independence Fire Chief Dale Rail; Coffeyville Mayor Virgil Horn; Coffeyville City Manager Jeff Morris; Coffeyville Police Chief Joe Humble; Coffeyville Fire Chief Greg Allen; State Senators Derek Schmidt and Dwayne Umbarger; Kansas Adjutant General Maj. Gen. Tod M. Bunting; Governor Kathleen Sebelius; State Representatives Jeff King, Virgil Peck and Kasha Kelly; and Montgomery County Commissioners Billy Lewark- Wood, Tony Fowler and Gene Tucker.

There are other people that were involved like Jim Miller with Emergency Management and the Kansas National Guard and the Kansas Highway Patrol that did a great deal of work during that time to make sure we had minimal casualties.

The one story I remember is the gentleman who was notified to get out of the area because the floodwaters were rising.

He chose to go back to his home to save his coin collection. I don't know what he was carrying his coins in, but he was later rescued by the Coffeyville Fire Department, and he lost all his coins.

So I think there was a good time for people to respond to the need, the disaster, and get out, but those that chose to stay behind did so at their own peril. I think it's a good lesson for all of America when emergency situations arise and our first responders are telling you to please leave the area, don't go back for your coin collection or anything else. Your personal safety is first.

Coins can be replaced, possessions can be replaced, but our human lives are one thing that cannot be replaced. So I'm very pleased that we had minimal casualties and only one fatality in that situation. Incidentally, that one fatality was a gentleman who chose not to respond to the warnings and stayed in his dwelling against the will of the people who were trying to rescue him.

There's another piece of legislation that I would like to mention that is the first step of reaching out to other areas, other Members of Congress who have had similar flooding since July. Now, they have been in States like Indiana, in their counties. It's been in Illinois, been in Texas, Nebraska. I have a bill that will help Kansas get back on its feet, but I would like to reach out to the other Members of Congress who have experienced flooding and ask them to join with me to help Kansas, as well as their areas.

I think we should have one bill that would address all the needs because they're very similar. The communities need to have the cleanup. They need to have some rehabilitation of historic buildings. They need to have infrastructure rebuilt. They need to have businesses supporting the cleanup.

So the bill that I have is H.R. 3444, and if we can work with those Members

of Congress, Madam Speaker, that have had similar flooding problems and have one bill, I think it would be easier for the House to schedule. Plus, we would meet the needs of all our communities.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia. There was one thing that I failed to mention, and that is that Coffeyville Resources, which is the refinery, has made plans to make things right. They've responded to the community. Those homes that were damaged by the spilt oil, they have asked to purchase those homes. They're going to turn that land back over to the city. They're going to make a park in that area.

So I think it's significant to note that when some corporation is a good public citizen, a good corporate citizen, that we ought to acknowledge that publicly because we need more of that.

I thank you for the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3159, the so- called ``Ensuring Military Readiness through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007.'' This ill-conceived and dangerous piece of legislation will lead to American troops stuck in Iraq with no reinforcements and no replacements.

All Americans long for the day when our troops can return from foreign lands. With U.S. troops deployed in over 35 countries around the world, their families count the days until their loved ones come home. However, our Nation must never lose sight that each soldier, sailor, airmen, and marine has a mission to complete: to protect the citizens and interests of the United States.

H.R. 3159 has a lofty goal that is supported by every American, every Member of Congress, the Secretary of Defense and the President: to provide time at home to Iraq for our men and women in uniform between deployments. This legislation would require a one-to-one ratio between deployments in Iraq and home station for active duty forces, and a one- to-three ratio for National Guard and Reserve. However, the Department of Defense, DoD, currently has higher standards of a one-to-two ratio between all deployments, regardless of location, for active forces and a one-to-five ratio for Reserve forces.

So, the question must be asked, why has H.R. 3159, with its lesser standards than DoD's own standards, elicited a Presidential veto, opposition from the U.S. Military leadership, and widespread resistance in Congress? Because this legislation is a political ruse and would do serious harm to our troops in Iraq and our national security.

Although this legislation would prohibit back-to-back deployments to Iraq, H.R. 3159 still would allow troops to deploy to Iraq and then to another nation, such as Afghanistan or the Philippines, without restriction. Let me be clear, contrary to the arguments of the Democrats, this legislation would not ensure dwell times for our troops.

However, it will do real harm to our troops in Iraq--leaving our troops without reinforcements and without replacements. H.R. 3159 would hinder the flexibility of Pentagon leaders to place troops where they are needed, and when they are needed. This legislation would not change the mission in Iraq or decrease the required number of troops. But it will force our troops to stay in Iraq longer--waiting for their replacements. And if additional troops are required--this bill would hinder any reinforcements from arriving in a timely fashion. Holding our troops without replacements or reinforcements does not constitute support, as Democrats have asserted.

Although it is true this bill includes a waiver provision--it only allows troops to be deployed after a 30-day congressional notification. During war, time is always of the essence. Throughout history, many battles and lives have been lost due to delays in reinforcements or replacements. When our military commanders urgently request a special operations or explosive ordinance disposal team, our President and military leadership needs to have the flexibility to send that team immediately. Under this legislation, the President would have to provide notification to Congress, wait 30 days, and then send these urgently needed forces. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous times for our troops and for our Nation. Our military commanders need the flexibility to effectively and safely carry out the will of this Nation. We must not hamstring our Nation's warriors. Therefore, I ask all my colleagues to join with me in opposition to this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Although I join with all my colleagues in steadfast opposition to pay discrimination, this ill- advised, over-reaching, and disingenuous overhaul of civil rights law is the wrong approach.

Pay discrimination is not a partisan issue. Pay discrimination strikes at the heart of the American Dream. For more than 40 years, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay-scale based on his or her gender. I whole-heartedly agree and support this law. Every American should be able to work hard, play by the rules, and make a living for his or her family. We do not stand for gender discrimination in the workplace.

This legislation is bad politics rather than good policy. H.R. 2831 was supposedly written to remedy a sad situation for one person--Lilly Ledbetter. She was apparently paid significantly less than her counterparts at Goodyear Tire Company during her tenure there. Decades later Ms. Ledbetter filed a claim of discrimination. Taking her claim through the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2007, that the statute of limitations had unfortunately run out.

Despite saying that H.R. 2831 simply restores prior law, by overturning a Supreme Court ruling against Ms. Ledbetter, in reality, Democrats will gut a decades-old statute of limitations that prevents the filing of ``stale'' claims and protects against abuse of the legal system.

Current law rightly provides a statute of limitations to file a discrimination claim, up to 300 days after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. However, under this bill, employees or retirees could sue for pay discrimination years, even decades, after the alleged discrimination.

How can a company defend itself when the accused offenders left the company decades before? The answer is--they can't. And that is exactly the answer desired by the trial lawyers who support this legislation. This legislation will not end pay discrimination, but it will certainly encourage frivolous claims and lawsuits. It is inevitable that under this legislation employees will sue companies for reasons that have little if anything to do with the accused discrimination.

Not only is H.R. 2831 the wrong approach to deal with this serious issue, but this legislation also has the threat of a Presidential veto. A Presidential veto means there is no chance action will be taken on this important issue. If Democrats were serious about dealing with this issue, they would work with the President and Republicans to draft serious legislation rather than move forward with this political stunt.

Madam Speaker, the issue of pay discrimination is too important to consider this poorly crafted, politically motivated piece of legislation. However, as much as we sympathize with Ms. Ledbetter, H.R. 2831 is bad legislation for our Nation. Let us join together, work in a bipartisan manner, and craft legislation that addresses pay discrimination while not destroying decades-worth of solid employment discrimination law. Until then, I ask my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

This bill is a good bill and it is needed to fill the gap.

I have heard a lot of hate for Attorney General Gonzales and the President tonight, but legislation should not be written based on one individual or two individuals.

In 1995 the Republican majority didn't pass legislation because Attorney General Janet Reno took credit for the fiasco in Waco when more than 20 children were burned to death. We didn't write legislation because government agents shot to death a woman holding her child in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Instead, we went ahead and did the right thing. And tonight, Attorney General Gonzales shouldn't have anything to do with the legislation we are going to pass because the leaks and the lawsuits that have occurred from liberal Democrats have placed this country in jeopardy.

Do you realize we don't listen to the terrorist calls like we used to, we don't listen to e-mails or follow e-mails like we used to, we don't follow terrorist finances like we used to because of these leaks and lawsuits from liberal Democrats. But this legislation tonight will pass and it will fill the gap.

If you don't pass this legislation, you will be responsible for any attacks that could occur on America.