Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, the distinguished minority leader (Mr. Boehner).

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

This resolution appropriately summons us to reaffirm the sense of urgency forged in the crumbling inferno of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and that field in Pennsylvania. Today we fulfill our duty to remember, to honor the memory of the 2,996 martyrs who gave their lives in the earliest day of protracted struggle against godless extremism.

This resolution reminds us that we are at war and no political difference or debate can detract from the heroic work done every day by the men and women of America's military. The 184 people who gave their lives at the Pentagon 5 years ago fought on an unexpected battlefield, but toiled until the end in loyal service to the national ideals of liberty and justice. A vote for this resolution confirms our eternal debt of honor to all those who fight to defend America and advance freedom.

On 9/11, America's first responders got a bitter taste of the unwelcome battle brought to our shores. But their valor and grit carried us all through that day and those that followed. In this resolution, we also honor and support the work of the public safety and public health professionals who work every day to protect us from terrorist attacks. Between 9/11 observances, however, distance from the tragedy of 9/11 seems to have allowed some politics to seep in to what should be wholly nonpartisan discussions of profound national security issues.

With each passing year, what looked hugely urgent after 9/11 tends to get smaller in the viewfinder as more current problems loom larger. While we lose sight of the threat, an enemy who relentlessly worked to transform airplanes into guided missiles is maniacally focused on other ways to harm us. Rather than using the lengthening historical horizon to elevate our perspective, we have also allowed the debate over the next step in Iraq to draw us deep into the political weeds.

As a Nation with global responsibilities, we need to climb out of the domestic political trenches and reclaim the high ground so dearly purchased 6 years ago. We do the victims of 9/11 a great disservice if we do not take bipartisan steps toward regaining a fair, far more strategic perspective.

While Iraq is undeniably an element of our post-9/11 security equation, we cannot let that effort obscure our view of the emerging threats to peace: an emboldened, nuclear Iran, a resurgent Taliban, a divided Palestinian Government, and our continued dependence on foreign oil as our economic lifeblood.

It is more than luck there hasn't been another major attack since 2001. Given the proven strength of our ideals and the moral bankruptcy of these who exalt death over life, defeat in this war can only be self-inflicted. Only if we lose patience, only if we lose faith in the universality of the yearning for freedom, only if we fail to honor the sacrifices of our countrymen, from Bunker Hill to the Twin Towers, can the purveyors of death prevail over the forces of life.

As in the almost 50-year cold war against Soviet Communism, our post- 9/11 reality has to be defined by a vigilance and a willingness to use all of the instruments of national power, not just the military, to advance the cause of human freedom. That is one lesson of 9/11. Written in innocent blood, it is a lesson we can never forget.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite).

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this point but am expecting a speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as much time as he may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Burke Centre Conservancy, located in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Burke Centre Conservancy is a home owners association representing 5,862 homes on 1,700 acres of land. A planned residential community, Burke Centre is comprised of single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, co-ops, duplexes and quad units. The variety of housing located in Burke Centre provides the Conservancy with unique and pressing challenges in ensuring a healthy quality of life for all of its residents.

Burke Centre is governed by an annually-elected board of trustees with seven volunteer members. The board acts to maintain community assets; address resident concerns; manage the financial assets of the corporation; execute the yearly budget; enforce Conservancy rules; administer community programs; encourage volunteer efforts; and to provide services to enhance a positive lifestyle within the Burke Centre community.

Significant accomplishments of the Burke Centre Conservancy include a community risk

management plan and stream bank instability study by the Board of Trustees; a $250,000 wetlands remediation project; and the establishment of a community parking district.

Burke Centre was also honored with the 2007 Best of Braddock Award for Neighborhood Enhancement and Beautification.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I commend and congratulate the Burke Centre Conservancy on 30 years of excellence. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the Conservancy on its continued growth and success for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 181, a resolution I was proud to cosponsor with my colleague Congressman Ortiz, which recognizes and commends the many thousands of volunteers who provide support to the families of deployed military personnel, including those serving in the National Guard and Reserve.

We make significant resources available to families and children of members of the Armed Forces who reside on or near military installations. But resources for families and children of National Guard and Reserve members are often difficult to access. Of the 1.2 million young sons and daughters of members of the Armed Forces, approximately 153,000 are children of those serving in the National Guard and Reserve.

These children also need help when parents deploy. The heroic work of these volunteers stresses the importance of maintaining childhood routines during times of stress and sacrifice. Grants supporting extra- curricular activities, including tutoring, sports, art, camping and other educational opportunities that might be missing when a parent is gone, keep families active and linked to their communities. The help and support provided by these organizations tells military families, particularly the children, that they have not been left behind, but that we all recognize the personal sacrifices they are making when their family serves in the military.

It's gratifying that many private non-profit organizations have been created by caring and thoughtful Americans to help fill this gap for Guard and Reserve children. This resolution recognizes and honors their work.

One outstanding example is an organization called Our Military Kids, Inc, created by Linda Davidson and Gail Krusel of McLean, Virginia. It is a small corporation that has continued to expand nationally, providing assistance and grants to the children of deployed or severely-injured parents in over 35 states this year. The positive effect they have had on children of the National Guard and Reserve cannot be overstated.

I salute the people behind Our Military Kids, Inc., and other organizations that have dedicated time, effort and money to assist our nation's military children. I ask my colleagues to stand up and join us in this resolution honoring their commitment and patriotic servIce.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3159. If it were a sincere attempt to address deployment-to-dwell schedules, I would be inclined to support it. Our troops have been rotating frequently; it is a serious issue that calls for a serious discussion.

H.R. 3159, however, is yet another sound bite masquerading as policy, and is illustrative of the entire congressional debate on Iraq thus far.

Not once have we had a serious deliberation regarding how to extricate ourselves from our current dilemma. We have only considered take-it-or-Ieave-it measures designed to inflict political damage; we have yet to make a serious attempt to find consensus on the most vexing foreign policy conundrum of our time.

I am dissatisfied with the conduct of the war, and I am eager to see an end to the casualties. Regardless, we must accept the fact that our actions will have long term consequences for the United States, for Iraq, and the entire Middle East. We must put more thought into our exit than we did our entrance to Iraq; legislation like H.R. 3159 does not suffice.

Yesterday at the Rules Committee, my colleague Frank Wolf offered an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the way forward in Iraq would be to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I was a cosponsor of this amendment, and I was disappointed the Rules Committee yet again denied us an opportunity to debate this important measure.

Madam Speaker, we are in a difficult spot in Iraq. In such circumstances, it makes sense to gather the best minds our country has to offer, from across the political spectrum, and ask their advice as to how we should proceed. That's what we did when we created the Iraq Study Group, and their recommendations represent a blueprint for an orderly way out of Iraq.

In my opinion, we should embrace these recommendations. At a minimum, we should debate them. I continue to look forward to the day that occurs.

Despite my misgivings, I would have supported this legislation had the majority supported the motion to recommit. This stipulated the deployment timetables proposed by the Democratic majority could go into effect. The Secretary of Defense, however, would have to certify they would not cause the tour of any unit already deployed to be extended. He would also have to certify they would not increase the operational risk to any deployed unit.

These were common sense measures worthy of support. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected them, and I am compelled to vote against the bill.

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

H.R. 3221, a 786-page energy bill introduced by the Speaker this week, contains a major restructuring of our Nation's energy policies. I come to the floor today to talk about the specific title of the bill, title VI, which promotes energy efficiency by our Federal Government. That is the jurisdiction which our Government Reform Committee wrote.

Title VI of H.R. 3221 is known as the Carbon Neutral Government Act. It was marked up by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as H.R. 2635 in June. After exhaustive discussions and negotiations with Chairman Waxman and his able staff, the committee approved the legislation by a voice vote. The committee put in a lot of work, and I very much appreciate the chairman's efforts to reach out and compromise with us.

The provisions in the Carbon Neutral Government title represent a bold effort to put the Federal Government in the forefront and in a leadership position with regard to mitigating the buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the Federal Government must be proactive and take an aggressive leadership role in mitigating the harmful effects of climate change. To that end, the legislation would establish ambitious goals for the government's use of renewable fuels, energy efficient automobiles, and energy- efficient buildings, ``green'' buildings.

More specifically, this legislation would mandate that the Federal Government's greenhouse gas emissions be

reduced to zero by the year 2050. The Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in the world and is currently responsible for emitting 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. Meeting this goal of zero net emissions will be a significant step in the direction of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and correspondingly reducing our impact on climate change.

Moreover, I concur with Chairman Waxman and others that setting and meeting these ambitious standards will accelerate the pace of development and adoption of technologies that will be critical to addressing climate change in the U.S. and worldwide.

That being said, we still have some reservations about the specific provisions in the bill.

There is a provision in title VI of the bill with the seemingly nebulous title of ``judicial review,'' more popularly referred to as the ``citizen enforcement provision.'' This provision would allow individuals to sue Federal agencies for failing to comply with carbon reduction goals called for in the legislation. To make matters worse, the provision allows plaintiffs to collect potentially millions of dollars in damages and attorneys' fees regardless of whether they can demonstrate any actual harm to themselves.

I appreciate the gentleman from California's working with us on this language and putting appropriate caps, and that makes the legislation amenable to myself. We have other Members who still have concerns.

Another concern I have in this legislation sets the government up to fail.

I mentioned earlier that title VI contains many laudable goals with respect to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by the Federal Government. But while eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions by the Federal Government in a few decades sounds great, in reality, this goal is going to be very difficult to achieve.

As this bill moves forward, I trust we will be able to move away from the rhetoric. We need to identify realistic goals that our Federal Government can meet and achieve and look for ways that we can achieve it.

Which raises a final concern: If you set unrealistic goals and then arm potential plaintiffs nationwide with the power to sue the government for failing to meet these goals, agencies will have little choice but to divert scarce resources away from their critical agency missions in order to ensure adequate funding to support the carbon emissions requirement.

While the majority included a provision at our request stating that agency plans on reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be ``consistent with the agency's primary mission,'' I am concerned that we need some work to ensure that agencies continue to place primary importance on their underlying responsibilities to serve the American people.

As great a threat as global warming is, the Federal Government also needs to carefully balance taxpayer dollars on reducing emissions at the expense of shortchanging other priorities such as health care, education, and national defense.

Mr. Chairman, I have limited my remarks to discuss only title VI of this legislation, the Carbon Neutral Government Act, and I again want to congratulate Chairman Waxman for working with us on this provision. I believe this legislation could go far in terms of striking the balance between making the Federal Government ``greener'' and devoting limited resources toward providing needed resources to the American public. But as we work our way through the legislative process, we want to continue to be engaged and address some of the concerns that we have identified.

I do have more serious concerns about other provisions in the broader energy bill put forward by the majority and, unfortunately, therefore, regret that I may not be able to support the energy bill before us today, depending on the outcome of some of the amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Issa, the ranking member on the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, our concern is that Mr. Issa would have liked to have put this to the floor and at least have given the floor an opportunity to have addressed these issues for the whole House. We very much appreciate the chairman's concern.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from San Diego (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on the Udall amendment of H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Offered By: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

Amendment No. 5: Page 55, line 2, insert before the period

the following: ``and that adequate infrastructure is in place

to support such a relocation''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 121. I want to thank Mr. Honda, the chief sponsor for this legislation, Chairman Lantos, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Faleomavaega and others who have helped bring this to the floor.

This resolution is long overdue. I'm a proud cosponsor of this resolution because it is time for these women to tell their story to the world. It is time for the world to know how horribly humans can treat other humans in times of war and conflict, and it is time for the Government of Japan to own up to the wrongs that it committed toward these women.

During World War II, between 100,000 and 200,000 women were abducted from their homes in Japan and occupied lands, including Korea and China and the Philippines, and forced into the sex trade for the benefit of the Japanese Army. To deny this tragedy is to allow it to happen again. We prevent history from repeating itself only when we actually learn from history, not when we try to deny and obfuscate the truth.

When U.S. Government placed Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps in World War II, we were wrong; and we have since apologized to the families of those victims. This is the measure of responsible leadership. When we implore our friends across the Pacific to apologize for their many mistakes, we ask for no more than what we as Americans are willing to do ourselves.

Japan has been a strong ally of the United States for years, and I believe both countries have benefited greatly from that relationship. However, it is a true friend that will tell another when it is wrong, and I believe the United States has an obligation as an ally to Japan to stand up against this atrocity and to reveal to the world in appropriate fashion.

It is time for the stories of the ``comfort women'' to be told. It is because these courageous women are speaking out and refusing to be silenced that the United States and the world can finally learn why this issue is so important and why we must never allow it to be repeated ever again on this planet.

I urge support for this resolution

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Private First Class Steven A. Davis and to recognize his service to our nation.

PFC Davis was a true patriot who served his country with honor. Throughout his life he selflessly dedicated himself to his fellow soldiers, family and friends, and to our country.

His family moved to Woodbridge, Virginia, in 2001. Before joining the Army, PFC Davis worked in a fast food restaurant to try and pay for college. Yearning to serve his country, he enlisted in the Army in September 2005, and began his first deployment shortly thereafter. PFC Davis was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado. Tragically, he was killed on July 4, 2007, after sustaining injuries from grenades detonated near his mounted patrol. He was honored with the Purple Heart and Bronze Star prior to his death.

PFC Davis is survived by his parents Guy and Tess, his wife Ayla and their one-year-old daughter Elizabeth, and his brother Specialist Chris Davis, who is also a soldier currently deployed to Iraq. His mother, Tess, is working in Iraq as a paramedic, and his grandfather is working there as a mechanic. His father, Buck, is also an Army veteran.

Words cannot express the gratitude we feel to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation; it is a debt that can never be repaid. I recognize that words are of little comfort for the family and friends of PFC Davis, who are truly suffering in the wake of the loss of this intelligent and dedicated man. I hope they will take some solace in I knowing that we will never forget PFC Davis and the tremendous sacrifice he made while defending our country.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to honor the memory of Private First Class Steven A. Davis. I call upon my colleagues to remember him as a man who gave his life protecting the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Leo A. Long for 50 years of dedicated service to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol.

Mr. Long, currently the administrative assistant within the Office of the Budget Officer for the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, has served at the Capitol since 1957.

Mr. Long began his congressional career as a temporary clerk-typist in the Architect's office during the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1958, he was transferred from his temporary position to the full-time position of payroll-clerk. By 1963, Mr. Long had been relocated to the position of assistant personnel officer and was promoted to administrative assistant in the Office of the Budget Officer in 1969, which is the job he continues to hold today.

Throughout his impressive career, Mr. Long has acquired a wealth of historical knowledge of the Architect's office through his diligent tracking of relevant legislation in the Congressional Record. Mr. Long has also supported major construction, restoration, and renovation projects throughout the Capitol Complex. Thus, he has seen the groundbreaking and completion of the new Dirksen Senate office building, the Rayburn House office building, and the Hart Senate office building.

Many things have changed over the course of Mr. Long's career. When he first began his service at the Capitol he commuted to work using a cable car and used pencil and paper. Today, despite the use of online resources, Mr. Long's historical knowledge of past projects and old paper records is of tremendous value. Whenever questions arise over matters that took place decades ago, colleagues come to ``Al'' in hopes of benefiting from his past experience and expertise. Mr. Long has made a lasting impact over the past fifty years and his service to Congress and the American people is commendable. I look forward to his continued work in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Leo A. Long for 50 years of service and dedication to the United States Congress. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding and congratulating him on this distinguished achievement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology Men's Varsity Eight Crew team, who represented the United States in the Princess Elizabeth Challenge Cup at the Henley Royal Regatta in England on July 4, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

The American people are not happy with the conflict in Iraq; I am not pleased either. Every day, my constituents tell me their concerns with Iraq, and I can understand their desire to put this behind us.

The reality is, however, that we cannot snap our fingers and make things all better; it's not simply going to go away.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have argued for years that we rushed headlong into Iraq without seriously considering the long- term consequences. Yet with this legislation they are repeating the very same mistake, only in reverse.

Staying the course is not a viable option, but neither is the fallacy of the orderly, phased withdrawal proposed by this legislation. You cannot gradually blow up a dam; once we begin to leave, chaos will immediately ensue. So I ask my colleagues, what do you propose to do after you order our troops away? What's your plan? Where's your responsible and workable strategy and vision?

Unfortunately, such a scenario may prove inevitable. But my colleagues hold forth this legislation as a plan: it's not. It's political pabulum. It might give politicians cover, but it exposes our servicemen to danger even greater than they already face. Ethnic, tribal, and religious killings will increase by an order of magnitude. The current refugee situation, already a disaster for Iraq's neighbors, will be dwarfed by the exodus to come. Our own men and women in uniform will be standing in front of a tsunami of violence.

What is required is a thoughtful, deliberative plan to make the best of an undeniably bad situation. Such a plan is embodied in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group--the product of a concerted, bipartisan and sincere effort on the part of some of our brightest citizens.

I have long advocated we seriously follow--or at least debate--the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Foreign policy and diplomatic issues are usually complicated, nuanced and multi-leveled; the situation in Iraq is no different. Yet all we have been given to consider are all-or-nothing propositions.

I would welcome a bona fide discussion regarding how to move forward in Iraq and in the Middle East generally--that is what we owe the American people. What we have today is nothing but four hours cooing to the other side's base. This is not leadership. No amendments were made in order. There was no reaching out to Republicans like myself who felt the surge was a mistake and are looking for another direction. What we have is a framed ``take it or leave it,'' ``my way or the highway'' approach. That approach got us where we are--a healthy dialogue with options is needed to appropriately disengage.

Two months remain until General Petraeus will be summoned before Congress. He will give us--as we have charged him to do--an honest assessment on where this ``surge'' has lead our troops and the Iraqi people. I hope at that time, whether his testimony reveals success or failure, this body will have the wherewithal to have a serious, open debate on what options we have left.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. I think it is a win-win. This amendment will reduce the appropriation to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel by $1 million, but it redirects those funds to a far more deserving entity, District of Columbia students who wish to attend college, the D.C. College Access Act.

I was the original author of this legislation in 1999. This legislation essentially allows students in the District of Columbia to attend out-of-state universities and pay in-state tuitions because the District of Columbia does not have a state university system,

Since that time, what had once been a pipe dream for D.C. students, because college was so unaffordable to them, paying for private colleges and out-of-state universities, has become a reality and is becoming part of the culture of the District. It has doubled the number of students in the District of Columbia that are now able to go to colleges. It has doubled that number. It is changing the culture. It is changing the aspirations of these students.

This amendment, the $1 million that is added here, will allow an additional 200 District of Columbia students to take advantage of this program and go on to higher education. There will be no waiting lists. There will be no backups. They won't have to wait to see if the money is there. It will be there for them.

If you want to change the culture of the city, we start with the education system. Mayor Fenty has started with a new system trying to revamp the public school system. But it doesn't do these students any good if they can't, at the same time, go on to higher education.

The other thing this has done is it has kept people in the District of Columbia. Instead of having to move to Virginia or Maryland to attend universities, they can now live in the District and afford to send their kids on to college. Aspiring students who come from, in many cases, single-parent or no-parent homes, can now work their way through colleges, community colleges and other state universities in the region, and be able to commute back and forth. This has been a win-win situation.

Now, we take this money from the Office of the Special Counsel. This office was increased by about $800,000 this year over last year's appropriations. We are bringing them basically to the level of appropriation they had last year.

It is a troubled office. In February, Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project testified before our committee that the Office of Special Counsel has become a caricature and an object of contempt among the constituencies it supposedly services. It illegally gags its own employees, engages in ugly retaliation against its staff and is engaging in heavy-handed obstruction of justice tactics to intimidate its own employees from testifying in ongoing investigations of its activities.

In April, Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, said, ``Having transformed OSC into a virtual black hole for legitimate complaints of retaliation, Bloch is decidedly not the right person to tackle issues of misconduct and illegality.''

More recently, we witnessed a Special Counsel who is trying to rehabilitate himself. But Beth Daley, the Director of the Project on Government Oversight, was quoted last month as saying, ``It is hard to believe the Office of Special Counsel will be able to conduct a thorough investigation into the White House while the Special Counsel is under investigation himself.''

So I think this office can go back to the basic appropriation it had last year. This money can be better spent invested in the students of the District of Columbia as they aspire for higher education.

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

Let me just say, first of all, it is the President's requested number, but the District can use this money because of the students that are still waiting in line to make sure that they have a place and there is no waiting list.

Let me just add this. You are defending the Office of Special Counsel. The Special Counsel, just weeks after he came into office, removed any reference to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from the OSC Web site. He then testified before the Senate that he did not believe current law protects Federal employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, an assertion that flies in the face of decades of precedent and defies an Executive Order by President Bush.

Today, the Special Counsel is under investigation by the President's Council For Integrity and Efficiency and the Office of Personnel Management for claims that he retaliated against employees who complained about office policies, issued an illegal gag order, abused his hiring authority, discriminated against homosexuals, allowed political bias to influence enforcement of the Hatch Act, and forced senior career staff to relocate from OSC's Washington headquarters to a new regional office in Detroit.

I would suggest that the gentleman go back and do his homework on this office. There are some sensitive issues they are dealing with. But I will tell you, this takes it back to last year's appropriation level, I think, or just about that level. More importantly, I think this money can be better spent on the students of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask my friend, what are the sensitive investigations he is referring to?

Are there any particular ones you are referring to at this point?

They have been looking at these investigations for years. This amendment still gives them $14 million to do that.

Which is almost the number they had last year. In light of the record that has been compiled here, the investigation of GSA is complete. That has been forwarded to the President. That is no longer pending, so that is no longer an issue. I just wanted to make that clear on the record. This is not about that. This is about a number of other issues that have been concerns expressed from your side of the aisle as well.

We had to get the money from somewhere, and this seemed to me an appropriate place to take it.

I am no stranger to this program. I was the chief author of authorizing this legislation to begin with. So we are not taking it for some program. This is a program I had a lot to do with creating and feel strongly about it and feel it could use additional money. I think the District feels the same way. The fact the committee funded it at the President's level doesn't mean it couldn't use additional money and fund additional students.

The one the gentleman is referring to has been completed. It has been forwarded to the President, and they have no additional jurisdiction. For the record, we need to clear that up.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina

Offered By: Mr. Tom Davis

Amendment No. 40: Page 48, line 15, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Page 48, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Page 78, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the efforts of public library Fairfax and Prince William Counties.

Public libraries have always been a great source of knowledge for the community. Recognizing the importance and need of public libraries, Benjamin Franklin, founder of the United States' first public lending library, once said that ``an investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.'' Public libraries enrich our lives by providing society with educational resources, a communal gathering place, free access to the internet and interactive services that engage the public in the joys of reading. Libraries allow people of every age to independently self educate themselves by taking advantage of the great programs and services offered.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to commend public libraries in Fairfax and Prince William Counties for the invaluable services they provide to the community.