Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 911, which expresses the House of Representatives' deepest condolences to the people of India and the victims and their families for the terrorist attacks that occurred in Mumbai on July 11, 2006.

India is a strategic friend and ally of the U.S. As the two largest pluralistic, free-market democracies in the world, it is only natural for the U.S. and India to seek closer ties with one another. India has one of the world's largest and fastest growing populations with nearly 1.1 billion people. According to the United Nations, India's population could overtake China by as early as 2030. In addition, Indian Americans have made an indelible mark upon the culture and diversity of our Nation. I was proud to sponsor H. Res. 227 that recognized the contributions of Indian Americans to our Nation, which the House passed earlier this year.

India and the U.S. have a strong history of cooperation. Directly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, India was one of the first countries to offer immediate aid to the United States. Most recently, the two countries announced an agreement which would allow full trade in civil nuclear energy. In exchange for such trade, India has agreed to separate its military and civilian nuclear programs over the next eight years, placing 14 of its 22 reactors under permanent international safeguards, as well as all future civilian thermal and breeder reactors. It has also agreed to maintain its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and to work with the United States toward a fissile material cutoff treaty, which would ban the production of fissile material, like plutonium-239, used in nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.

The bloody attacks that took innocent lives in Mumbai earlier this month demonstrate that terrorism does not discriminate by race, ethnicity, or region. Instead, terrorists target those seeking to live a peaceful and free life. We must hunt the terrorists down and bring them to justice. There is no other way to respond to those so committed to the destruction of life. We must also stand in solidarity with the Indian government, its citizens, and the number of Indian Americans who also lost loved ones. This resolution does just that--making it clear that Congress and the American people are behind them during this difficult period.

Mr. Speaker, in closing let the House of Representatives speak in unison and with clarity on this issue--terrorism has no place in this world and will not be tolerated. I thank the leadership on both sides for allowing this resolution on the floor today and urge an aye vote.

Mr. Speaker, last May I voted in support of H.R. 810. I rise again today to override the veto of this legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate why I believe that expanded Federal funding of stem cell research is good public policy. We are aware of the potential embryonic stem cells hold. They could hold the key to the greatest mysteries of medical science, offering cures for those afflicted with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries and others. I hope they do.

On the other hand, they can be nothing but a source of false hope, another disappointment for those who wish for a return to health either for themselves or their loved ones. The only certainty is that we will never know the answer if our scientists are overly constrained in their efforts. Without the wherewithal of the National Institutes of Health, we face the prospect of numerous State agencies attempting to set up research protocols, something they are not well equipped to do.

Good science takes time. We must not throw caution to the wind at the hint of miraculous cures. Indeed, left unconstrained, this type of research could lead to dangerous outcomes.

H.R. 810 provides ethical guidelines by which federally funded researchers must comply. I believe it would be far preferable to have the Federal Government setting standards in this field rather than a hodgepodge of States and private entities. The Federal Government should lead the way.

I supported President Bush when he announced his plan to allow federally funded research on 60 preexisting lines. Now, though, we only have 22 lines with significant shortcomings that make them of dubious value.

Federally funded U.S. researchers are at a technical disadvantage as they lack access to newer stem cell lines. Our top stem cell biologists are moving into non-federally funded research or even going overseas to pursue their work. We should not allow this to happen.

There is no question that many difficult questions attend this debate, and many feel strongly that there are ethical reasons not to pursue embryonic stem cell research. But I strongly feel there are ethical reasons why we should. I cannot look at a couple whose child is suffering from a debilitating disease in the eye and tell them I am not doing everything as their elected official; I came to find a cure. I cannot look a researcher in the eyes and tell him I will not let him explore the promise.

I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in firm support of H. Res. 721, which supports the goals and ideals of a Salvadorian-American Day (El Dia del Salvadoren) in recognition of all Salvadoran-Americans for their hard work, dedication, and contribution to the stability and well-being of the United States.

Salvadorans form an integral part of our communities and our labor force. My district in Northern Virginia, for example, is home to many hard-working Salvadorans who pay taxes and consume U.S. products. Salvadorans also play an important role in the economy of their native country by sending billions of dollars in payments to their families in Central America every year. The remittances that

these individuals send to their families are a large source of revenue, which the United States could not match in foreign aid. As a result, after suffering through a string of brutal civil wars, El Salvador now has a moderate, democratically-elected government.

Madam Speaker, in closing it is all too easy to overlook the important and daily contributions that Salvadorian Americans have made not just to Northern Virginia, but to our Nation as a whole. This bill provides much needed and deserved recognition to the Salvadorian American community for the indelible mark they have made upon the diversity and prominence of our great nation. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3496) to amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining and improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3496, as amended, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2006. This important legislation would establish critical new oversight and accountability mechanisms for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, including an inspector general and an increased Federal presence on the Authority's board of directors. These steps are being taken to ensure that the funding provided to the Authority by Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia and the Federal Government are being spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

In 1960, President Eisenhower signed the National Capital Transportation Act to provide for the development of a regional rail system for the Nation's Capital. He did so in recognition of the need to provide reliable access to government facilities for Federal workers, contractors, and citizens. Over the years, other Presidents have also recognized this need: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and most recently, President George H.W. Bush.

Past Congresses have done so as well. In 1969, the National Capital Transportation Act was signed into law. Subsequently, Congress passed amendments to this act in 1979 and 1990. The sentiment expressed by Congress in supporting Metro in 1979 remains the same today: ``Congress finds that an improved transportation system for the National Capital region is essential for the continued and effective performance of the functions of the Government of the United States, for the welfare of the District of Columbia, for the orderly growth and development of the National Capital region, and for the preservation of the beauty and dignity of the Nation's Capital.''

The sole purpose of the previous authorizations was to provide the easy and reliable access to government for Federal employees and citizens that President Eisenhower envisioned. Today, the Metro system remains an indispensable resource for the Federal Government. At peak times, over half of Metro riders are Federal employees and contractors. Metro's record riderships have occurred during historic events, where people from all over the country flocked to the Nation's Capital for the national gathering; President Reagan's funeral, the Fourth of July celebrations, Presidential inaugurations.

In times of national crisis, the Metro system has also proved indispensable to the Federal Government, such as during the September 11 terrorist attacks in which Metro served as the primary means out of a city under lock-down.

In many ways, the Metro system is the lifeblood of the Federal Government. More than 15 Federal agencies in the National Capital region are located adjacent to Metro stations. This is not a coincidence. Federal agencies rely on the Metro system to get their employees to and from the workplace year round in all types of weather. Unfortunately, as was recently evident when Metro suffered delays due to torrential rains that hit the region, when Metro shuts down, the Federal Government shuts down.

In 1965, 1969, 1979 and 1990, Congress recognized the unique relationship between the Federal Government and Metro, acknowledging the shared responsibility in maintaining the Metro system to make sure it keeps pace with the growing service demands.

Without a similar commitment today, Metro will no longer remain a viable transportation option to the Federal Government or the region. Last month, as part of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, the House voted to devote funds from future OCS receipts for Metro revitalization.

The bill today sets out other measures necessary to ensure that these dollars are well spent. Before I detail what this bill does, let me detail what it does not do. It does not authorize any additional appropriations for the Metro system. This bill is about good government, something I am sure we can all agree on.

Specifically, this bill requires the three jurisdictions comprising WMATA, Maryland, Virginia Virginia and the District, to come up with a dedicated revenue source to cover capital and operational expenses.

As GAO recently reported, Metro is unique among major transit systems in that it only derives a tiny amount of its budget from dedicated sources. This legislation would require the local jurisdictions to come together and rectify a long-standing discrepancy.

The bill also creates an Inspector General for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Most major transit systems have an IG in place already. There is no question Metro is a complex organization with many moving parts. Thus, it is especially important that appropriate controls are in place to identify and address managerial, financial, and operational discrepancies and problems.

Without the legislation we are considering today, the Federal funding for Metro that was authorized as part of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act last month would have no strings attached to it. The purpose of H.R. 3496 is to establish an Inspector General to monitor the operations and to ensure that the Federal funding generated by the OCS receipts would not be allocated unless the local jurisdictions have committed to equally share the financial responsibilities with the Federal Government.

Finally, the bill adds four Federal members to the WMATA Board of Directors, including for the first time a Federal presence on the WMATA board. Since Metro is such an integral part of the Federal Government's day-to-day operations, it stands to reason there should be a direct Federal representation in Metro's affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about funding; it is about the good use of funding. Congress has long recognized the national significance of the Metro system. The provisions of this bill will ensure our Nation's subway is a model of efficiency and good performance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Could I ask how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been a champion of transportation in the Washington area during his tenure in Congress.

I recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a strong transportation advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize my distinguished colleague from northern Virginia, a neighbor, and also a strong transportation advocate, Mr. Moran, for 3 minutes

Before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent to put the memorandum from Greg Waring of the Congressional Budget Office into the Record noting that CBO has reviewed the proposed amendment and it does not authorize any additional appropriations, score of zero.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new program. This program was authorized in 1960 and signed by President Eisenhower. It has been reauthorized four times; and I hope it has a long life, a long productive life, taking commuters off clogged roads and using mass transit so we can reduce our energy dependency on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an authorization of funds. It is about making sure, as my colleagues have said, that this money is spent well. If this goes down, the money still goes through without any checks and balances and Inspector Generals or any of these being set up. If you vote against this bill, you are not saying we should not spend any extra dollars on the Metro system. You are not saying that. You are saying they can spend the extra dollars without the congressional oversight.

Statistics show that Metro is, in fact, one of the best run systems, but I am not willing to say they are so good that no improvements are required and additional oversight is not required.

The provisions in this came from a GAO report. It is our responsibility in Congress to ensure Federal dollars are well spent. There should be nothing contentious about requiring an Inspector General, adding Federal members to the board, or requiring the jurisdictions to truly provide stable funding to the system.

So I urge my colleagues to offer this bill their full support.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague. He has long been a supporter of no further Federal spending, but we are out the barn door on this. That happened under the previous legislation, under the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. This refines it and controls it and makes sure the money is well spent.

I hope my colleagues will join us in legislation that scores zero with the Congressional Budget Office and reauthorizes this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Voting Rights Act authorization. I will be inserting for the Record a letter from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Tim Kaine, supporting the act as written.

It is an unfortunate fact of our history that there were once entrenched practices that served to deny minorities their franchise. Such systematic discrimination cannot stand in a country founded on the promise of freedom and equal protection under the law.

Some argue that those times have passed, that there is no need to reauthorize the law. But the committee held over a dozen hearings on this and found out that there are still discriminatory practices around the country. Forty-one years ago, I thought our predecessors in the Congress put this issue to rest. They determined this legislation was the best method by which to ensure the one-man, one-vote principle would be a reality.

Much has been said about the onerous nature of certain provisions of section 5. My State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in its entirety, is covered by section 5 in the original Voting Rights Act. But we are also the only State to have jurisdictions that have exercised their right to bail out under section 5.

In order to bail out, a jurisdiction must have been in full compliance with the preclearance requirements for 10 years. It can have no test or device to discriminate on the basis of race, color, language, or minority status, and no lawsuit against the jurisdiction alleging voter discrimination can be pending. Eleven jurisdictions, some of which are in my district, have bailed out successfully. More jurisdictions should and will follow suit. I have been assured by civil rights leaders they will support bailouts where appropriate, where jurisdictions can meet the basic requirement.

I would like to note that the justification for the continuing of this act is not based solely on old data, that, in fact, hearings have been held; and I think the record is complete showing the continued need for this.

Section 5 is important because it is still being used today to prevent changes in the law which would adversely affect minorities. In fact, section 5 has been used more since 1982 than it was used before 1982. We have come a long way in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in America generally, but that doesn't mean there still isn't more work to be done.

I congratulate the chairmen and the ranking members for working on this very bipartisan bill and urge its support.

Commonwealth of Virginia,

Office of the Governor,

Richmond, VA, July 12, 2006.

Hon. Tom Davis,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Davis: I am writing to express my strong

support for S. 2703 and H.R. 9, the Senate and House versions

of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King

Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

Unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is as necessary

today as it was when Congress enacted it. The VRA continues

today to serve to protect and guard against discriminatory

practices in elections and protects the rights of minority

voters. While the nation has dramatically changed over the

years, instances of discrimination still exist.

Section 5 of the VRA requires jurisdictions with a history

of discrimination to have their voting laws and regulations

pre-approved (or ``pre-cleared'') by the federal government

or a federal court before they may be changed. In my

experience as Mayor of Richmond as in my positions with state

government, I have found that the preclearance requirements

are not onerous, and in fact provide a useful venue for

public input into significant changes in election law.

The VRA's minority language provisions serve to remove

language as a barrier to political participation, and to

prevent voting discrimination against law-abiding, productive

members of society. Section 203 does this by requiring

certain jurisdictions provide language assistance to citizens

who are not yet fully proficient in English when voting.

While no jurisdictions in Virginia yet meet the statistical

thresholds set out in Section 203, by 2010 Arlington,

Alexandria, or Fairfax County may meet one or more of these

formulas. Arlington and Fairfax County, with their

considerably significant Spanish populations, already

voluntarily provide voter information in Spanish. This is

especially important for individuals wishing to make informed

voting decisions on bond referendums and constitutional

amendments. The Virginia State Board of Elections also works

with the Virginia Press Service to provide the explanations

of the Constitutional Amendments to all minority newspapers

in the state. The SBE also recommends that the papers publish

the explanations in the language of their constituencies.

Please vote to reauthorize the VRA, including Sections 5

and 203, without amendment, when it comes to the floor. Let

us work together, both federally and within the Commonwealth,

to continue to protect the rights of all voters.

Sincerely,

Timothy M. Kaine,

Governor.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Pombo for bringing H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006, to the floor today. This important legislation would modernize a key aspect of our Nation's energy policy by providing for energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States.

H.R. 4761 would generate a significant amount of new revenue in the form of oil and natural gas royalties for coastal States that allow offshore drilling, as well as the Federal Government. The amendment I am offering today would authorize a portion of the funds generated by the legislation to go to supporting Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Specifically, the amendment would provide $150 million per year for 10 years to fund capital and preventative maintenance projects for Metro, without which Metro could not function effectively, would have to be matched dollar for dollar from Virginia, Maryland and the District.

Congress has long recognized the unique relationship between Metro and the Federal Government. Three times we have authorized renewed Federal commitments to this system, understanding that it is a vital Federal Government asset.

The government first committed to sharing in this responsibility for Metro in 1960 when President Eisenhower signed the National Capital Transportation Act, creating a National Capital Transportation Agency to develop a regional rail system for the Nation's capital. Since that time, Congress has periodically infused the system with Federal funding to protect its original investment and accommodate ridership growth. The government continues to pay its fair share of the costs of the capital region's transit system.

Unlike other regional transit systems in the country, Metro was designed to make sure Federal workers and contractors as well as tourists have easy access to government offices and work places.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I would appreciate your vote on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Corporal Andy D. Anderson one of the true heroes of the conflict in Iraq, and to recognize his service to our Nation.

Corporal Anderson, a longtime resident of Falls Church, VA, graduated from J.E.B. Stuart High School in 2001. While at Stuart, he enjoyed a prolific athletic career. He was a leader of the football team and was among the leading scorers in the county in basketball. After a year of college, he followed in his father's footsteps and enlisted in the Army, in which he was assigned to the Army's B Company, 46th Engineer Battalion at Fort Rucker, AL.

Just a few weeks ago, Cpl. Anderson had been home to visit his family in Vienna, VA. He proposed to his high school sweetheart and impressed friends and relatives with his self-assurance.

Corporal Anderson was ambitious and selfless, hoping to make the Army a career. Tragically, on June 6, 2006, Cpl. Anderson gave his last full measure for our Nation, when he was killed by mortar fire in Ar Ramadi, Iraq.

Corporal Anderson is survived by his father, Harold Anderson, mother Xiomara Mena, and his brothers Rafael and Randall.

Words cannot express the gratitude we feel toward those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. This is a debt that can never be repaid. I hope the family of Cpl. Anderson, who are suffering in the wake of the loss, will take some solace in knowing that we will never forget Cpl. Anderson's sacrifice or the sacrifices made by other patriots like him in the defense of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to remember in our minds and in our hearts the bravery and sacrifice of Cpl. Andy D. Anderson, as well as that of all the men and women of the armed services who honorably protect the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 607. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. It proposes to change existing law and therefore constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment restoring funds for the Law Enforcement Tribute Act Program to its FY03 funding level of $500,000.

Mr. Chairman, only seven weeks ago, the Fairfax County Police Department suffered the loss of two officers in the line of duty, the first fatal shooting in the department's long history.

As I join the Fairfax County community in mourning the loss of Master Police Officer Michael Garbarino and Detective Vicky Armel, I also have in my thoughts the roughly 740,000 officers nationwide who put their lives on the line for the safety and protection of others on a regular basis.

Mr. Chairman, every day, we are honored by the service these men and women give to our communities. This amendment will allow us to give those who sacrifice the most for our community and safety the recognition they deserve. I am pleased that the chairman has agreed to accept the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Martin Faga, who is retiring from his post at the MITRE Corporation. I have known Marty Faga since my days in the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, when he was a congressional staffer and civic activist in Lee Boulevard Heights.

President and Chief Executive Officer of MITRE Corporation, Mr. Faga received his master and bachelor of science degrees in electrical engineering from Lehigh University in 1964 and 1963.

Before joining MITRE, Mr. Faga served from 1989 until 1993 as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space, where he was responsible for overall supervision of Air Force space matters. At the same time, he served as Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), responsible to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence for the development, acquisition and operation of all U.S. satellite reconnaissance programs.

Mr. Faga joined MITRE in 1993 as Vice President of MITRE's Center for Integrated Intelligence Systems, one of the three units operating under the Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. He later served as Senior Vice President, General Manager, and Executive Vice President. Since 2000 he has been MITRE Corporation's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Faga's career has included distinguished service as a staff member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, where he headed the program and budget staff; as an engineer at the Central Intelligence Agency; and as an R&D officer in the Air Force. He has served on the Commission for the Protection and Reduction of Government Secrecy, the Jeremiah Panel to review the mission and organization of the NRO, several Defense Science Board Task Forces, and the National Commission for the Review of the NRO. Additionally, he has been appointed by President Bush to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and to the Public Interest Declassification Board.

Awards and honors bestowed upon Mr. Faga include the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal, the Air Force Exceptional Civilian Service Medal, the NASA Distinguished Service Medal, and in 2004, he was awarded the Intelligence Community Seal Medallion.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Martin Faga and congratulating him on his retirement after a distinguished career dedicated to ensuring the national security of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5060) to amend the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 to require data with respect to Federal financial assistance to be available for public access in a searchable and user friendly form, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Majority Whip Roy Blunt and I introduced H.R. 5060, which would amend the Federal Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 to require data with respect to Federal financial assistance to be

available for public access in a searchable and user-friendly form. The bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to create a Web site for all grant awards to be displayed in a format that would be easily accessible and free of charge. Each award would be required to be listed on the Web site within 30 days of its enactment.

No such real-time disclosure is required today of grant awards, and available data is often untimely. Currently there is no central database of all entities receiving Federal funds, including the nearly 30,000 organizations that are awarded nearly $300 billion in Federal grants each year. In fact, several agencies have taken different approaches to making public information about grantees, and often little or no information is available on line.

Our bill would put the framework in place for increased sunshine on the Federal grant process, allowing anyone with access to the Internet to review and search Federal assistance awards, thus providing greater transparency to the grant-making process.

I congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, for recognizing the importance of this issue and working so hard to bring this measure forward. I also want to thank my ranking member Mr. Waxman for working to move this legislation forward in a bipartisan way. This bill adds much-needed transparency to the Federal grant process. I also want to thank Mr. Davis, too, my colleague from Illinois, for his assistance in this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his kind words and also thank him for his many, many contributions to the committee and the bipartisan approach we have taken to issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who is the chief author of this legislation.

And as we shed more light and sunshine on congressional earmarks, grants are essentially executive earmarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I again thank Mr. Waxman and his staff and Mr. Davis for being here, and all of the staff on the Government Reform Committee on the minority side, Anna Luitin, Christopher Davis, Robin Appleberry, and Brian Cohen for their contributions to this legislation as well. We thank you for working with us.

I would just add that I would urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 5060, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Preston A. Englert for twenty-five years of service to the National Kidney Foundation of the National Capital Area.

Mr. Englert, President and CEO of the National Kidney Foundation of the National Capital Area, has served at the Foundation since 1981.

Mr. Englert graduated from Louisiana State University in 1970 and attended graduate school at the University of Tulsa and George Washington University. A native of Memphis, Tennessee, Mr. Englert served as the Executive Director of the American Heart Association branches in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Atlanta, Georgia before joining the National Kidney Foundation in 1981. In July of 1986, Mr. Englert became the Vice President of the Foundation and he was named President and Chief Executive Officer in 1999.

The National Kidney Foundation has grown substantially under Mr. Englert's leadership. He is responsible for outreach programs, increased funding, early detection screenings and the expansion of both patient services and public awareness. Mr. Englert is extremely invested in the community, indicated by the numerous accolades he has accumulated over the years. He was named the Active Member of the Year by the Greater Washington Society of Association Executives in 1989. Mr. Englert's passion for helping humanity transcends the boundaries of this community, as he received the ``Partnership Award'' in 2005 from the National Kidney Foundation, Inc. for work with dialysis patients displaced or affected by hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Englert is a shining example of one man's ability to affect change. His creativity and innovation has turned the National Kidney Foundation into one of the most successful affiliations nationwide. He has dedicated his life to giving a voice to kidney disease patients around the country and he has made a lasting impact over the past twenty-five years. I look forward to Mr. Englert's continued service in the years to come.

I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Preston A. Englert and congratulating him on this distinguished achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us today. I would like to first offer my gratitude to those brave men and women who are fighting or have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe you a debt which we can never repay.

Since the United States invaded Iraq, I have seen this as a high- stakes gambit. If we were successful in not only defeating the Iraqi Army, but in the more difficult task of establishing a democratic government, we would be far down the road to affecting a paradigm shift in the Middle East, one which would replace potentates, dictators, and repression with representative governments, transparency, and opportunities for both men and women.

If we were to fail, the cost would be incalculable. It would be a reaffirmation for many in the world that the United States lacked the fortitude to see a mission through to its completion. It would embolden terrorists the world over; threaten those states in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Israel, that are friends of the United States.

Regardless, the situation in Iraq is what it is. There is no question Iraq is a petri dish for terrorists now. Our main nemesis in Iraq is called ``al Qaeda in Iraq.'' Thus, our activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan are now clearly linked to a global war on terror. There is no other way to view the situation.

I am eager to build on the recent successes in Iraq. I truly hope that we have turned a corner with the death of Zarqawi and the forming of the government. If voter turnout is any indication, the Iraqi people are eager for democracy. They had a higher voter turnout in Iraq than we did in Virginia for our gubernatorial race. But make no mistake, what we are trying to do in Iraq has been and will continue to be extraordinarily difficult. Even with Zarqawi gone, there are many dangerous people who will stop at nothing to stop us.

I don't support a public date of certain withdrawal from Iraq. Doing so creates an untenable situation for our forces and our Iraqi allies and presents a real gift of predictability to the enemy. But there has to be a sense of urgency. We are in a war that we have to win, but we cannot plod along indefinitely.

Our Founding Fathers had 13 years between the beginning of the American Revolution, the ratification of the Constitution, and the inauguration of George Washington. We don't have that luxury in Iraq. Our troops are giving their lives in Iraq. Our country is spending hundreds of billions of dollars. We can't pull the rug out from the under the Iraqis, but we can't babysit the situation either. We don't have time to waste on activities that are ineffective. We don't have money to waste on bad equipment and services.

Some have charged that this Congress has been asleep at the wheel and has done no oversight. That's not true. I have. Our committee has held four hearings on contracting practices in Iraq, including a day for whistleblowers at Halliburton, and I intend to hold more.

Our subcommittees, particularly the one chaired by Mr. Shays, have held dozens of others. What we have found is a lot of mistakes in management and oversight. But remember, this is the first time we have contracted this extensively in a combat situation. Everything about doing business, everything in a war zone is difficult and costly, and it is disingenuous to deny this.

If we are going to see this mission through successfully, there must continue to be vigorous, comprehensive, constant oversight to ensure we stay on the right path. We should do everything we can to hasten the day when Iraq is able to handle its own affairs. Our role in Congress is to conduct the oversight that the people expect of us.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend him for his hard work on this important legislation. And while I strongly support Chairman Knollenberg's bill, I will be voting in support of its passage, I am disappointed that this bill does not provide funding for the Office of Personnel Management's initiative to modernize the Federal Government's retirement systems.

The current antiquated paper system is in desperate need of modernization. A failure to provide funding to establish a more efficient and effective electronic process for handling these retirement claims, especially after the first three contracts have already been awarded, represents a significant setback for the modernization efforts.

While I understand that funds are tight in the current budget climate, unnecessary delays to the modernization of the Federal Government's retirement processing will only end up costing us more in the future, and it will likely lead to additional unnecessary delays and errors in the processing of retirement benefits under the current antiquated system.

I would urge the gentleman from Michigan to work with the Government Reform Committee, the Office of Personnel Management, and other interested stakeholders to explore in conference ways that funding for this important initiative might be restored and contracts continue on track.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and let's make no mistake: Much of the work that is performed under contracts that would be banned under this amendment are performed in the United States by American citizens, and we are taking these people's jobs and eliminating them. It is an ill-considered amendment.

While targeted tax provisions to address the issue of corporate tax policy is appropriate, penalizing companies by prohibiting them from participating in Federal Government contracting harms both the United States Government and its citizens. The government should be able to purchase the best goods and services of world-class companies wherever they are located, absent compelling national interests. We should be able to get the best bulletproof vests, the best body armor, the best armor for our APCs that are going around, wherever the companies happened to be headquartered. The prohibition makes no sense.

We are also banning companies from doing business for activities that were legal at the time they made these corporate decisions. This is like an ex post facto ban.

Do we want the best technology and premier information technology service, or don't we? That is the question. This amendment is a wonderful way to ensure that we don't.

I can understand if this amendment applied to Iran or Syria or North Korea; but Panama, Bermuda, the Cayman Island, they pose no threat to the United States.

Preventing successful firms from participating in the Federal marketplace just because they happen to be incorporated outside the United States rejects the free market principles underlying our full and open competitive Federal acquisition system. Obtaining full and open competition from all firms who wish to participate in our Federal market is the keystone of our acquisition system, ensuring that taxpayers get the most value for their tax dollar.

Domestic source restrictions like this are simply counterproductive; and, I might add, they invite retaliation. Americans are only 4 percent of the world's consumers. When we start putting bans on countries that we are not going to contract with, they put up similar bans. The end result is instead of our ability to expand marketplaces for American companies and American jobs, we end up restricting it to the 4 percent of the world's consumers that happen to live in the United States.

Also, the substance of this amendment is not necessary because Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversion in the JOBS Act, the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new section to the Tax Code, section 7874, which treats U.S. companies that complete a corporate inversion transaction after March 4, 2002 as domestic U.S. corporations for tax purposes. So we have addressed this issue. This is penalizing companies who make decisions prior to that time.

Critics could argue that companies that have engaged in corporate inversions prior to March 4, 2002 should be covered by the JOBS Act, but Congress shouldn't ban companies from competing for government contracts because of legal transactions they performed more than 2 years ago, at the same time denying American servicemen and the American Government the

ability to get the best acquisition products that we can for America.

In recent years, the House has consistently rejected contracting ban amendments. I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.

Well, I think if you are a patriot on this issue you oppose this amendment. I guess patriotism can be defined in a number of ways.

First of all, the GAO report that was referred to was a GAO report in February of 2004 before Congress passed the Jobs Act that deals with the tax inequities in this particular area. The companies that are at issue pay full taxes on work and contract work that is performed in the United States. Basically, their offshore incorporation refers to how they look at foreign dollars coming through those and how those are viewed under the Tax Code. But the Jobs Act addressed that, and the GAO report was prior to that Jobs Act.

And finally, let me just add that retaliation, Bermuda is a protectorate of the United Kingdom. Panama is a country and an ally, and this is a very slippery slope once we start getting into which countries can do what that propose absolutely no risk to the United States at all. I think it is a bad amendment and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I do.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend taking the amendment out of turn. I rise in opposition to the Flake amendment. The $50,000 that Mr. Flake is trying to strike would go to the Fairfax County Park Authority to renovate fields in Annandale, Virginia.

Baileys Crossroads, Seven Corners, Culmore in the Mason District, is just inside the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia. Like many areas, they are experiencing significant problems with gangs. They have a heavy immigrant population, and thousands of low-income, low-cost apartments.

I might add, open space is at a premium in these areas. One way we can make a positive impact on the gang problem is to give the kids something to do, and that is just what we are trying to accomplish with this particular earmark.

The playing fields in question are used by youth athletic leagues that bring kids in, offering them any number of positive experiences as alternatives to joining gangs and keeping them out of trouble. This is a much more urbanized part of Fairfax County. It may be in the aggregate a wealthy county, but I can tell you the people that this impacts are the lowest of the low in terms of their incomes.

But we have apartments in this Seven Corners area where you have two or three families living in two-bedroom apartments. This is a more urbanized part of the county. The county has over a million people.

Open space is at a premium. Just a couple of years ago, a soccer field where immigrants used to play soccer was displaced by an Eckerd Drug Store, depriving them of other fields. And gang activity in the Culmore area has thrived. Northern Virginia is rapidly expanding.

With every passing year, there are fewer and fewer places for young people to engage in constructive outdoor activity. And the kids that this affects do not have cars, they cannot take mass transit, they cannot afford taxicabs. This is an area where they can get to and be able to find some alternative to joining a gang and joining into illegal activity.

With every passing day, there seem to be more and more ways for them to get into trouble. Athletic activity is one of the best alternatives to gang activity.

There is an old saying, ``You can pay me now or you can pay me later.'' This investment, if it just saves one kid from a life of crime and a career in the prison system, will be well worth the dollars in this particular case.

But in my district, our constituents frequently tell me there are pressing needs; can we help out over and above what they might be able to get in the political process? A lot of the people that this helps generally have been powerless at the ballot box, they have been unable to get it through the usual allocation of park authority funds, which tend to go out to wealthier areas.

Under the HUD portion of this bill, that is where this earmark comes from. There are programs that are supposed to be used to fund revitalization programs. That is exactly what this is, in the Annandale, Baileys Crossroads area.

This project is good use of these dollars. This project, I think, will help the young people in our district turn away from the influence of gangs and get them into more constructive activities. More importantly, I think it is an investment in the future. So it is for these reasons in this particular case that I rise to oppose the Flake amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that putting one kid into a gang with the crimes that could be committed and a life in the prison system is worth a lot more than the $50,000 that we have asked for and earmark in this bill that will improve these fields and make them available to a wide array of young people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bruce Leiby, who is retiring after twenty-nine years of service to Prince William County Public Schools.

Mr. Leiby, the principal of Prince William County's Bel Air Elementary School since 2003, received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Gettysburg College, Pennsylvania, and a Master of Arts degree in Education from Temple University in Philadelphia. He began his career in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania before moving to Prince William County. In 1977, he began teaching at Stonewall Middle School in Manassas and continued teaching at Potomac High School in Dumfries. Throughout his career, he has been an assistant principal at Fred Lynn Middle School, Occoquan Elementary in Woodbridge, and Rockledge Elementary in Lake Ridge. In 1985, Leiby accepted his first position as principal of Occoquan Elementary School. In 1998, he became Bristow Elementary's first principal, guiding the school through its initial years and leading it to receive recognition as a fully-accredited institution. In 2000, due to Principal Leiby's leadership, Bristow Elementary School won its first School of Excellence Award. After a short stint as Prince William County's curriculum supervisor for social studies of all grades, Leiby returned to school to become Bel Air Elementary's principal in 2003.

While principal of Bel Air Elementary, SOL passing scores have risen substantially. Mr. Leiby has shown himself to be an innovative educator, who inspires students and teachers alike in a nurturing and supportive environment. His leadership style is highly admired throughout the county, whether as a principal or curriculum coordinator. He has been nominated three times for the Distinguished Teacher of the Year and Principal of the Year awards. He is truly an asset to the Prince William County Public School system and will be greatly missed.

Our students are our number one resource. Mr. Leiby has dedicated his life to ensuring that they are given the opportunity to achieve success. Over the past 29 years in Prince William County, he has made a lasting impact on thousands of students.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Bruce Leiby and congratulating him on his retirement after a distinguished career.