Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Flint Hill Elementary School as it prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary.

Since its establishment in 1955, Flint Hill Elementary School has committed itself to lofty standards of academic and extracurricular excellence. Over the years, as the Vienna area has expanded and diversified, Flint Hill has followed the community's example.

To this day, Flint Hill Elementary School remains a distinguished and greatly lauded school in many respects, from the arts to academics. The school boasts a number of unique programs, from a Cultural Arts Program to the Flint Hill Elementary School Morning News Team to an annual science fair. The garden serves as a living learning environment, which includes a butterfly garden and a greenhouse. The courtyard is a result of collaborative effort and hours of hard work by students, parents, and teachers. Technology continues to be paramount at Flint Hill, and every class is equipped with a computer presentation system and access to the Internet.

The mission of Flint Hill Elementary School is to promote student learning and high academic standards, while providing a respectful learning environment that develops individual academic achievement and supports social and emotional growth.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Flint Hill Elementary School faculty and staff for the immeasurable contributions they have made to the community by shaping today's youth and tomorrow's future. I congratulate the school on its successes over the last 50 years and I wish it more successful years in the future. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this outstanding and distinguished institution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an exceptional officer in the United States Army, Lieutenant General Richard A. Hack, upon his retirement after 33 years of distinguished service.

Throughout his career, Lieutenant General Hack has personified the values of duty, integrity, and selfless service across the many missions the Army has provided in defense of our Nation. As the Chief of Staff and Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Materiel Command, Lieutenant General Hack has made lasting contributions to the Army Materiel Command; an organization that employs more than 50,000 in 149 locations worldwide to include 43 states and 38 countries. It is my sincere privilege to recognize his many accomplishments. I commend his superb service to the United States Army and this great Nation.

Lieutenant General Hack is a second-generation Army officer, the son of Colonel (Ret) and Mrs. Sidney Hack of Columbia, SC. He graduated from the Virginia Military Institute and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Ordnance Corps. Upon completion of the Ordnance Officer Basic Course, he was assigned to Fort Knox, KY, where he served as Platoon Leader and later Shop Officer for the 530th and 514th Maintenance Companies. He was then assigned to Schweinfurt, Germany, as Shop Officer of the 596th and 903rd Maintenance Company and served as Commander, 42nd Maintenance Company in Furth, Germany.

Following the Ordnance Officer Advanced Course, Lieutenant General Hack participated in the Training with Industry program at Sikorsky Aircraft Company in Stratford, CT, and was subsequently assigned to Rock Island Arsenal, IL, as a Materiel Management Staff Officer and later as Aide-de-Camp to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Armament Materiel Command.

After graduation from Command and General Staff College, Lieutenant General Hack was assigned to the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, GA, where he served as Materiel Officer and Support Operations Officer for the 724th Main Support Battalion, Executive Officer of the 24th Forward Support Battalion, and Chief, Division Materiel Management Center.

Following his Fort Stewart assignments, Lieutenant General Hack served as the U.S. Army Europe Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics staff in Heidelberg, Germany, and then commanded the 705th Main Support Battalion, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort Polk, LA. After command, he was a staff officer at the Ordnance Center and School at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. After graduation from the U.S. Army War College, Lieutenant General Hack returned to 24 Infantry Division where he commanded the 24th Infantry Division Support Command. He then served as the Executive Officer to the Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command. His subsequent assignments include: Assistant Division Commander for Support of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Hood, TX; Commanding General, 13th Corps Support Command, Fort Hood, TX; and Commanding General of the 21st Theater Support Command, United States Army Europe, Germany.

Throughout his military career, Lieutenant General Hack has been a sterling example of leadership and professionalism. Special thanks must also be given to Lieutenant General Hack's wife, Rosanne, and their son, 1st Lieutenant Richard J. Hack. First Lieutenant Hack carries on the family tradition as the 3rd generation to serve in our Armed Forces, and is currently serving in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Lieutenant General Hack for his service to our country. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding his past accomplishments and wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday July 23, 2005, was a dreadful day for the entire civilized world. The multiple bombings in the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh that killed dozens constituted the deadliest act of terrorism in Egypt's history.

I want to assure the victims of the attack, their families, and all Egyptian people that the House of Representatives and the American people stand with them during this time of loss.

As we know all too well, terrorists remain committed to senseless killing of innocent people. Their evil must be defeated. That a suicide attacker would ram a pick-up truck packed with 660 pounds of explosives into a hotel is just the most recent demonstration of the viciousness of these killers.

Last weekend's attack is not an isolated incident. A suicide bomber exploded a bomb in a Cairo market on April 7 this year, killing three, including one American. On April 30, two women fired several gunshots into a tour bus in Cairo wounding seven people. And on July 7, Egypt's Ambassador to Iraq, Dr. Ihab al-Sharif, was kidnapped and killed by a group associated with al Qaeda.

The July 23 attack is a heartbreaking reminder of the human toll in the war on terror, but it will only serve to steel the resolve of America, Egypt, and our allies. The U.S. Government will continue its cooperation with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to track down the terrorists involved in these attacks. America and our allies do not distinguish between terrorist acts aimed at interrupting the Israeli- Palestinian appeals process, those attacking the operations of the new Iraqi government, or those that result in the murder of innocent sightseers in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Mr. Speaker, as this legislation resolves all to do, I am proud to join President Bush in expressing the solidarity of the American people with the Egyptian people in the aftermath of the July 23 attacks. I strongly support House Resolution 384.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, an alumnus of the Committee on Government Reform, a very active former committee member, for yielding me this time.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 380, the rule to provide for the consideration of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

``Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.'' This is the unofficial motto of the Postal Service, engraved outside the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City.

But today, the Postal Service faces a threat far greater than snow or rain or heat or gloom of night. The threat is the outdated and unsustainable structural framework within which the Postal Service operates. It threatens to bring it to the brink of catastrophe unless Congress acts immediately. I think that H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, is the solution.

This legislation reforms and sustains a vital sector of our overall economy. Standing alone, the Postal Service currently has more than 800,000 employees. But more than 9 million American jobs, $900 billion in commerce, and nearly 9 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product depend on mail and package delivery.

Each year the Postal Service processes and delivers 208 billion pieces of mail to more than 130 million addresses in the United States. That is 208 billion magazines, catalogs, thank-you notes, birthday cards, wedding invitations, Social Security checks, IRS refunds, letters to our Congressmen, movie rentals, all delivered in fulfillment of the Postal Service's promise of universal service.

The last time that the Congress passed legislation to overhaul the Postal Service was 1970 when President Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act, before e-mails, before faxes. The world has changed.

It is now time to bring the Postal Service into the 21st century, to rescue it from the structural, legal, and financial constraints that have brought it to the brink of utter breakdown.

Now, our time to act is short. This past April, the Postal Service began the process of requesting a 5.4 percent rate hike for all categories of mail. These rate hikes, think of them as a tax on the average postal customer which, of course, is practically everybody in the United States, will take effect next year unless Congress acts. For direct marketers, financial service companies, businesses relying heavily on shipping and mailing, these rate hikes will be devastating.

Some observers have likened the Postal Service's current situation to a death spiral, where declining business leads to higher rates which, in turn, leads to further declines in business until it is too late to change course. Unfortunately, under current law, the Postal Service's only recourse to remain competitive in today's markets is to raise its rates.

Moreover, the Postal Service's more recent request for a rate increase was spurred in part by an existing requirement that the Postal Service contribute $3.1 billion to a Federal pension escrow account, even though this account now houses more than $73 billion in civil service retirement savings that rightfully belongs to the USPS. This is but one of the outdated requirements that H.R. 22 seeks to reform.

Is this bill perfect? No, but there is no magic legislative potion that will cure the Postal Service of its ills. But I think that all of the stakeholders, the postal employees, the financial service companies, major marketers and, most importantly, all Americans who use stamps, are better off with this legislation than they would be without this long overdue package of reform.

More than 35 years after the last reform of the Postal Service, with millions of jobs at stake, and particularly in the face of the pending rate increases, the time has come for Congress to act. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules

for crafting this rule. I urge Members to support it. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a former member of the committee, for his leadership and assistance in crafting this rule and getting this bill to the House floor. It was very, very important; and without his efforts, we probably would not be here today.

Ben Franklin once said: ``A penny saved is a penny earned.'' Rates are set to go up 2 cents. If we act today, we can stave that off, we can delay that, we can put savings back into the post office.

I want to also thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has forgotten more about the Postal Service than I will ever know, who struggled with this for 10 years and has been very critical in crafting this legislation; and on the other side of the aisle, my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) who have put innumerable hours into crafting the bipartisan bill.

I think this is a good rule, it is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 22.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who has played a lead role in moving this bill to where it is today, and spent 6 long years in the vineyards laboring on this when he was chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the committee intends that the Postal Service will exercise the more clearly delineated rulemaking powers provided under this section in a way that is rationally related to the policy objectives set out in the revised statute, and it is predicated upon an understanding of the effect the regulations will have on the conditions in the postal sector.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the committee further expects that the Postal Regulatory Commission will distinguish carefully between abuses of the Regulatory Authority set out in section 404 and the legitimate exercise of managerial discretion by the Postal Service in its implementation of the complaint provisions contained in section 205 of the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, most of us are familiar with the engraved saying outside the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City: ``Neither rain, nor snow, nor heat, nor gloom of night might stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.''

This is the unofficial motto depicting some of the circumstances our Nation's letter carriers face in fulfillment of the universal service obligation of the United States Postal Service.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which addresses a problem plaguing our Postal Service today that is far greater than the snow or rain or heat or gloom of night. That problem is the outdated and unsustainable structural framework of the Postal Service which threatens to bring it to the brink of catastrophe unless Congress acts immediately.

This legislation is about more than reforming the Postal Service itself. It is about reforming and sustaining a vital sector of our overall economy. After all, the Postal Service currently has about 707,000 career and 98,000 noncareer employees. In addition, more than 9 million American jobs, $900 billion in commerce, 9 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, let me repeat, 9 percent of GDP depend on mail and package delivery. Thus, the Postal Service is not only vital to our national communication network but also to our national economy.

Each year the Postal Service processes and delivers 208 billion pieces of mail to more than 130 million addressees in the United States. That is 208 billion magazines, catalogs, thank-you notes, birthday cards, wedding invitations, Social Security checks, IRS refunds, letters to Congressmen, movie rentals, all delivered in fulfillment of the Postal Service's promise of universal service.

The last time Congress successfully passed legislation to overhaul the post office was 1970 when President Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act, before e-mails, before fax machines. It is time to bring the service into the 21st century.

The legislation we are considering today, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, is the culmination of a decade of hard work and study, not to mention a great deal of bipartisan negotiation and cooperation amongst various groups. Consequently, H.R. 22 now represents our best chance at solving the structural, legal, and financial constraints that have brought the Postal Service to the brink of utter breakdown.

This past April, the Postal Service filed paperwork with the Postal Rate Commission to request a 5.4 percent rate increase for most categories of mail. These rate hikes, which are scheduled to take effect early next year unless Congress acts to prevent them, will impose a significant cost burden, let us call it what it is, a tax on the postal consumer.

For direct marketers, financial service companies and businesses relying heavily on shipping and mailing, these rate hikes are devastating. To make matters worse, increasing postal rates could send the postal office into what many observers call a death spiral, where declining business leads to higher rates which in turn leads to decline in business until it is too late to change course.

Unfortunately, under current law, the Postal Service's only recourse to remain competitive in today's market is to raise rates. That is no way to run an operation. In addition, the Postal Service's most recent request for a rate increase was spurred in part by an existing requirement that the Postal Service contribute $3.1 billion to a Federal pension escrow account which now houses more than $73 billion in civil service retirement savings that rightfully belongs to the United States Postal Service.

This is just one of many instances in which the USPS is hampered by the current legal framework. And it is one of many outdated requirements that H.R. 22 seeks to reform.

Quite simply, the laws that the Postal Service has today are outdated and unsuited for today's competitive environment. Let me take just a minute to highlight a few of the reform components included in this comprehensive bill that will enable the service to move into the 21st century.

Universal service. First and foremost, the bill preserves the Postal Service's commitment to universal service, the guaranteed delivery 6 days a week to each and every address in the United States.

Pension responsibility. It returns responsibility for funding the military cost of postal retirees' pension to the Treasury Department where it belongs. It is recommended by the President's commission. This liability was shifted to the Postal Service in the last Congress. That shift was little more than an accounting gimmick, but it is one that must be reversed if we are to be serious about fixing the Postal Service's long-term balance sheet.

The escrow account. As I have already mentioned, the bill frees up the $73 billion in civil service retirement savings that has been held in escrow, allowing the Postal Service to use this money to defray rate increases, among other options.

Modern rate regulation. This legislation shifts the basis of the Postal Rate Commission from a costly, complex scheme of rates to a modern system designed to ensure that rate increases generally do not exceed the annual change in the consumer price index. This applies only to market-dominated products, such as letters, periodicals, and advertising mail, because the Postal Service has provided different pricing freedom for its competitive products, like express mail and priority mail.

Strengthening the commission. This act will rename the Postal Rate Commission the Postal Regulatory Commission and give it teeth by granting it subpoena power and a broader scope for regulation and oversight.

Finally, the act sets the stage for future reforms by mandating several studies including a comprehensive assessment of the scope of standards for universal service.

Today, the White House released its statement of administration policy, its SAP, regarding this legislation. While we share the ultimate goal of effectively reforming the Postal Service, some issues still lack consensus between the Congress and the White House. The administration has established some general, overarching principles to guide the framing of the comprehensive reform of the U.S. Postal Service. These include best practices of corporate governance, transparency, flexibility, accountability, and self-financing.

Our bill shares these goals, but recognizes these principles are often times at odds with one another and may require some give and take. For example, the administration has proposed segment reporting for each and every class of mail, a practice which would unfortunately place the Postal Service at a competitive disadvantage with some of its toughest competitors. Thus, this requirement would be contrary to the administration's first stated proposal of best practices of corporate governance. It is just one example of an instance in which compromise is needed if we are to enact meaningful, comprehensive reform.

This bill, the refined product of nearly 10 years of careful negotiation and compromise, strikes an ideal balance among the guiding principles on which both the House and administration are in agreement. I just want to assure the administration we will continue to work closely will them as H.R. 22 heads toward a conference.

Before I conclude, I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who chaired our special panel on postal reform and was the original bill's chief sponsor. He was, without doubt, the right leader to undertake this daunting task.

I also want to thank the former chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who played an integral role in moving the ball forward on postal reform that allowed us to be where we are today.

Finally, I want to thank the Committee on Government Reform's ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking member on the special panel, for their dedication to this subject and their willingness to operate in a bipartisan manner and work through this, through the difficult issues that have been presented.

Bipartisan cooperation is the primary reason why this bill has finally reached the House floor and why we have been able to keep such diverse stakeholders around the table in productive discussions.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chief author of this, someone who has championed this cause since I came to Congress.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who has been very helpful in putting this bill together.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have tried on this legislation to not get into some of the specific shortcomings of Postal Service delivery on ZIP codes and the like, but I want to tell the gentleman that I have looked at this Taylorsville issue. I want to pledge to work with the gentleman from Utah and with the Postmaster General to make sure these needs are resolved and to support a thoughtful solution for the city of Taylorsville, and just assure the gentleman that that is a priority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his support of this legislation and his efforts. I think it is important, as he points out, that all of these different impacts are taken into account when the Postal Service undertakes the realignment and consolidation of postal facilities. I look forward to working with him and the Postal Service as these unfold.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

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

It has been said that victory has 1,000 fathers, and defeat is an orphan. As we approach a victory on this bill tonight, at least on the House side, let me thank some of the fathers. We have talked about some of the Members being involved, but thanks also go out to the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Small Business Legislative Council; a group of financial service companies like American Express, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Citigroup, Financial Services Roundtable, J.P. Morgan; groups in the newspaper and publisher business like Magazine Publishers of America, National Newspaper Association, Printing Industries of America, Time, Inc.; labor unions like the American Postal Workers Union, National Association of Letter Carriers, National Rural Letter Carriers and the National Postal Mail Handlers Association; postal management organizations like the National Association of Postmasters, National League of Postmasters, National Association of Postal Supervisors; postal competitors like United Parcel Express, UPS and FedEx; and other organizations like the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, the Mailers Council, the Parcel Shippers Association, Pitney-Bowes and others.

And on the staff side, Melissa Wojciak, my staff director; Jack Callender, who has made his career on the committee the Postal Service; Robert Taub, who the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) rightly, I think, gives the credit for being the father of this behind the scenes; Ellen Brown, Mason Alinger of our staff, Rob Borden, Kristina Sherry, Michael Layman, Phil Barnett, Michelle Ash, Denise Wilson, Naomi Seiler, Jill Hunter-Williams and Richard Boykin from the committee as well. All of these made major contributions.

What does this tell us if we pass this legislation? The cost of stamps is going up, but if we pass this legislation, it

will be nowhere near the increases that we will get without this important legislation.

The need for postal reform is obvious in this case. Failure to act is a job-killer. Inaction will jeopardize at least 1.5 million jobs. This is a top priority for industry, the mailing industry, a $900-billion-a- year industry, nearly 9 percent of GDP, its economic value, 9 million jobs. Failure to act would be the same as a tax increase on American consumers. If we do not seize this moment, we effectively impose a significant new tax and a new tax burden on every American who uses stamps. If we do not take action, the Postal Service will be forced to begin increasing postal rates, starting with 2 cents at the beginning of next year. A small business that spends $5,000 annually on postage will lose almost $300 a year. An industry like financial services would get slammed with over $600 million in increases annually with no increase in productivity. And the American public will waste over $20 billion in unnecessary postage over the next decade. That is why this legislation needs to be passed.

What is wrong with the current Postal Service? We have got some of the best and most dedicated workers in the world, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others have pointed out, but they are operating under a 30-year-old system that completely missed the information technology revolution. It is a service that is saddled with $7 billion in workers' comp claims, $5 billion in retirement payments and $57 billion in health care costs. The statutes governing USPS are some of the most rigid and restrictive in the U.S. Code.

Finally, this means jobs. We can talk about trade and everything else, but failure to enact this will cost jobs in every State.

Let me conclude by saying and echoing what the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) noted, and that is, this bill is not a perfect bill. It is not a perfect bill today. It will not be perfect probably when it comes out of conference. But as we look at this, this is a finely balanced piece of legislation that today has almost unanimous agreement in the industries that are affected, among the workers that are affected and among the consumers that are affected.

We want to keep this balance as this comes to the floor. There are some very attractive amendments, well-meaning amendments that are going to be offered, but they upset this balance and jeopardize this bill. We have in front of us jobs, we have productivity, and we have almost 9 percent of the gross domestic product of this country at stake if we fail to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, please include the attached exchange of letters between Chairman Don Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of the Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Bill Thomas of the Committee on Ways and Means and myself.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.

Hon. Tom Davis,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Rayburn Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.

22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 22 and the

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,

while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over certain

provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a

sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my

decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or

otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and

of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional

interest will be included in the Committee report and in the

Congressional Record'' when the bill considered on the House

Floor.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also

asks that you support our request to be conferees on the

provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House

Senate conference.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Don Young,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as

I may consume. I thank my friend for offering his amendment. I am unable to support it, but I understand the spirit in which he is giving it to try to make this a better bill.

This is a carefully crafted bill in which Republicans and Democrats have come together to try to work through a lot of issues, and moving one part out really jeopardizes the total package.

The gentleman quoted the minority leader, or the minority whip, as saying, This is a good bill and it should be passed this year; and he understood that, but why would a Republican Congress do it.

A Republican Congress would pass this bill because we do not want a 2-cent rate increase next January. The only way we can forestall that rate increase is by passing this legislation; and to pass this legislation, we need to work together with Republicans and Democrats. That means we give on some issues and we take on others.

The question was raised, well, we ought to have a taxpayer on the board. I think everybody who is on the board is a taxpayer. The fact of the matter is, there are four members of the board who are management, but they are not postal management. There are two postal management members of the board, and this would reserve one for the unions to pick; and by the way, there are diversity among the postal unions. That is a tough job to pick somebody because of competing interests over mail handlers versus letter carriers and the like.

But this is good legislation, and I am afraid that this amendment, in my judgment, despite I think the best intentions of its author, will upset that delicate balance that we have created to this point. It is not something that is new to corporate America to have a member of labor sitting on corporate boards. It is actually done quite frequently, particularly in the airline industry and a number of other industries where this is fairly common at this point. And since the postal workers have a lot to gain or lose by this as well, we think their voice can be very constructive at the end of the day.

So for those reasons and the fact that this particular provision has been in the bill since its introduction 11 years ago, and until this amendment was filed, I do not think any objections have been raised. I understand where the gentleman is coming from; but for those reasons, I would ask my colleagues to reject the Pence amendment and to support the final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

We are not bailing out the post office every 4 years; it is like every 35 years, since the last act. We did come out with some additional money because of anthrax and because of the added burdens that we put on the post office at that point, but the post office has to operate under its own budget; and right now, the only thing they can rely on is rate increases, and rate increases drive mail away into other areas, which is why we are working this bill tonight.

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I think it is unnecessary. The Postal Service already has considerable authority to test and implement different methods of providing services to the public. Nothing in the current law, I repeat, nothing in the current law or in H.R. 22 prevents the Postal Service from employing contractors in providing mail service.

The post office has a long history of doing so, starting with the Pony Express. For most of its history, the Postal Service has relied on dedicated contractors to manage small post offices, often in rural communities. Almost 8 percent of all of the post offices are operated under contract, not by postal employees; 8 percent.

Also, for 160 years, the Postal Service has relied on private contractors for the transportation and delivery of mail. Star route carriers today continue to operate, transporting mail efficiently and effectively nationwide, even delivering the mail to over 2 million homes 6 days a week. In many rural communities, those served by both contract postal units and star route carriers, the Postal Service's entire relationship with their customers is already handled by contractors, not employees.

For these longstanding and successful postal contract arrangements, this amendment is at best unnecessary. At worst it adds a new layer of procedures that will place burdens on expanding these programs into newer areas. One puzzling aspect is its provision allowing the Postal Service to waive laws, rules and regulations, including sections of the criminal code, which I am not sure I understand. Maybe the gentleman on his time will explain.

But the Service does not need this waiver to contract the provisions. In fact, it only serves to remove needed protections safeguarding the sanctity, privacy and security of the mail. Do customers really want their mail delivered by contractors to whom no laws apply?

In short, the Postal Service has been conducting pilot tests of these ideas since the 19th century. I would say the evaluation phase is over, the results are in, they work. Let us not mess them up with a new, unnecessary, convoluted regulation. Both postmaster organizations oppose this.

And so I would urge that we defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this: On the $6 billion figure floating around, it is important to understand that the reason the Congressional Budget Office scores this as an increase is because they have contemplated and put into their figuring that there will be rate increases. Our legislation takes away those rate increases, so that is not coming into the Treasury. So if you do not have a rate increase, it scores.

When you sit here and say it is going to cost the taxpayers, that means they do not have to go with a rate increase. We are being penalized because we are not doing rate increases, and it scores against us. We need to understand that. And that is why this legislation is being passed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the universal service obligation of the post office gives it a burden in requirements that some of the other facts and figures alluded to do not have to meet.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining time to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this. First of all, the Postal Service is self-operating. What it raises, it spends. The increased money that was added was because of the anthrax issue. It was a national security issue.

This amendment is bad for the economy. We are talking about 8 percent of GDP now having at least a 2 percent increase. In fact, under this amendment, it would not just be a rate increase, this would be basically a rate shock to Americans. It would be far in excess of that.

This hurts Americans' competitiveness, it is bad for the economy, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 355) celebrating Walt Disney's contributions to our Nation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to support H. Res. 355, which celebrates Walt Disney's contributions to our Nation. I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for sponsoring and spearheading this resolution.

As 2005 marks the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, now is an appropriate time to recognize the outstanding contributions of its founder, Walt Disney, to our Nation. Like so many American success stories, Walt Disney was a self-made man. In the 1920s he began by independently producing a series of animated comedies, starting with Alice's Wonderland in 1923. In 1928 Walt Disney figuratively struck gold when he created Mickey Mouse. Since then, he went on to create countless other memorable characters, too numerous to list here.

In the process, he won 32 Academy Awards for his work. Nevertheless, the highest praise for Disney may lie in the sustained delight his creations have inspired in millions of Americans, young and old, for more than 70 years.

Not content with just his screen creations, Walt Disney was inspired by his daughters to create a special place where adults and children could have fun together. In 1955, he realized this dream with the opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California. In the park's formal dedication, he expressed his hope that Disneyland would be ``a source of joy and inspiration to the world.'' It is no exaggeration to say that his dream has become a reality. Now, millions of people around the world benefit from his inspiration at Disneyland and the many other family-oriented Disney theme parks, cruise lines, and resorts. Much like his movies, a visit to Disneyland is a cherished memory of countless childhoods.

Walt Disney was an unrivaled imaginative visionary. Through his gifted imagination, he has touched nearly all of us and left our culture far richer than he found it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Bobby Mitchell Hall of Fame Classic, held in Loudoun County, Virginia.

The Bobby Mitchell Hall of Fame Classic is a golf tournament that benefits the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Since 1990, Bobby Mitchell and other Hall of Famers have donated their time every year to help raise needed funds to find a cure for leukemia and blood-related cancers such as lymphoma and myeloma.

Since retiring from professional football after a successful 11-year career, Bobby Mitchell has dedicated his time to achieving his goal of defeating leukemia. Mitchell was traded by the Cleveland Browns to the Washington Redskins for Ernie Davis, a Heisman Trophy winner. Unfortunately Davis was diagnosed with leukemia and died at age 23, never getting the chance to play a game of professional football. Davis' heartbreaking death motivated Mitchell to take up the cause and find a cure for the disease.

This tournament is the nation's largest annual hall of fame reunion with more that 40 pro football and basketball legends present. Funds are generated by donations made through spectators, raffles and other contests. Mitchell and the fellow hall of fame participants are aiming to cross the $4 million threshold in funds raised for the charity. Funds from the tournament are donated to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate the Bobby Mitchell Hall of Fame Classic on 15 years of success. It has helped many lives, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Bobby Mitchell and the Hall of Famers' past accomplishments and in wishing them continued success in the many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. My friend from Indiana with whom I have worked on so many issues, I tend to agree with him on the substance of the issue, an individual being able to keep a weapon in their own home to defend themselves, but the issue here is larger than that. It really goes to the question of respecting the rights of the District of Columbia to make their own laws and the mayor and the council have spoken on this innumerable times. They seem to have the support of the vast majority of the city.

Our committee held a lengthy hearing on this, hearing from all sides just 2 days ago. It was an illuminating hearing that I think highlighted both sides very, very well. But to me the issue comes down to one of home rule. Are we going to allow cities and States to make these jurisdictions or are we going to try to federalize everything out of Washington? I would just caution my colleagues that once we start doing everything out of Washington, it may be on your side, but tomorrow it could go the other way. We have to respect the Federal system that was set up.

This does not affect the workings of government, so in my judgment, Congress really should not be intervening in this matter although we have the legal right to do so.

I also want to note that there is pending the case of Parker v. District of Columbia that offers the opportunity for second amendment advocates to answer with finality the question of does this violate the second amendment. Passing this amendment today could possibly moot that decision which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. This is one opportunity because the court has looked for ways out of deciding this decision. This is a way we may be able to speak with clarity and finality. If this amendment passes, we won't have that. It is a very two-edged sword, and I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the D.C. Personal Protection Amendment. Let me say that I respect my colleague from Indiana's perspective on this issue. There is room in the Congress for debate on the merits of some of our nation's gun laws. My opposition is based on the legislation's blatant and potentially dangerous assault on home rule in the District of Columbia.

The Committee on Government Reform held a hearing this week on this very issue. We heard compelling stories from Mayor Tony Williams, Chief Charles Ramsey, and an array of witnesses, including residents of the District of Columbia and representatives from national think tanks and community organizations on both sides of the debate. I was disappointed that my friend from Indiana, the author of this amendment, was not able to attend the hearing to hear these views himself.

I am a strong supporter of Home Rule. For our system of federalism and democracy to work, states and localities need to be able to make their own decisions on these sorts of matters--even if some of us think they're bad ones.

There is an appropriate place for a debate on D.C.'s gun laws--and that place is the chambers of the District of Columbia Council, not the floor of the House of Representatives.

Proponents of this bill want to frame this debate in terms of the Constitutionality of the District's law. Various lawsuits have been filed in recent years questioning the constitutionality of the D.C. gun law under the Second Amendment. There's a case pending on appeal right now, Parker v. District of Columbia, that offers the opportunity for the Second Amendment challenge to be answered with finality. Proponents of this amendment have the opportunity for the courts to declare that the D.C. ban violates the Second Amendment. So what's the rush? What are they afraid of? We (and for that matter, the City Council) can consider the gun ban in light of the result of that case. In fact, if this Amendment becomes law, it could moot the ability of the Court of Appeals to address this critical 2d Amendment with finality. We are only here today because of Congress' plenary power over the District. This is a constitutional authority that is, unfortunately, occasionally abused, as is the case with this legislation. D.C. leaders have enacted gun laws that reflect their constituents' view that any increase in the number of guns in the District increases the odds that crimes will be committed with those guns. That's their view, and it should be respected.

I'm not saying I agree with the District's gun ban. Frankly, I don't. But I strongly oppose this amendment because I have a profound respect for Home Rule, for the right of local jurisdictions to craft their own local laws--even laws some of us don't agree with. This District law has no bearing on Congress and no bearing on the ability of the federal government to conduct its business. That should be the litmus test for federal involvement in the District.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

First of all, we should understand that the companies that are at issue here pay American taxes. They pay taxes on all of the income that is derived from Federal contracts that they are performing and on work done in the United States. Many of these companies are multinational corporations, and they may be headquartered in Panama or Bermuda for other reasons, and maybe how they treat their global income, but their American income is all fully taxed.

We should not force companies to reincorporate in the United States; and, in the case of a company just mentioned here, it was never incorporated in the United States. They just happened, as a multinational partnership, when they decided to go as a corporation, to locate their headquarters outside the United States, but they employ tens of thousands of Americans who are paying taxes every day. Why do you want to put them out of business, particularly if they are providing a service to the American Government that is the best value for the American taxpayers?

Why, if a company provides the best body armor or provides the best mechanics or the best service, are we excluding them and making the American taxpayer pay a higher rate for the same service that may be inferior? That is what this does.

Our procurement system should be based on getting the best value for the American taxpayer. If you do not like the tax system, let us go back to the Tax Code. And as the chairman said, Congress addressed this issue of corporate inversion in the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act added a new section to the Tax Code which treats U.S. companies that complete inversion transactions as domestic, U.S. corporations for tax purposes.

This amendment is not going to produce any more jobs, but it will produce higher costs for American taxpayers that buy goods and services. It will produce less of a marketplace that we can go out and shop and get the best value for our troops in the field and for government services. And for that reason it ought to be voted down. This is outdated in a global economy.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 808. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. It proposes to change existing law within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and therefore constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any attempts to cut funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. I think this is a time to reaffirm, not dismantle, our commitment to this program, to the people of Colombia and to American citizens who want illegal drugs off their streets.

How can we cut funding when we are seeing tremendous results in illegal crop eradication? Coca cultivation in Colombia has been reduced by 33 percent since 2002, and opium poppy cultivation dropped 52 percent in 2004 alone.

As a result of ACI funding, we have seen unprecedented levels of drug interdiction. And interdiction is what this amendment goes to, cutting $100 million.

From January to May of this year, 71.7 metric tons were seized from traffickers and destroyed before reaching our neighborhoods. Each week brings news of new seizures of cocaine and heroin, interdictions that are usually the result of U.S. supplied intelligence.

In fact, just last month, Colombian authorities seized 13.8 tons of cocaine worth about $350 million in what was one of the largest drug busts in history. Interdiction efforts like these would not be possible if the gentleman's amendment passes.

The Colombian Government is reestablishing state presence in areas where the country has lacked it for a century. Criminals who have remained at bay for years are being captured and extradited to the U.S. for prosecution. Colombia has extradited 271 Colombian citizens to the United States since August of 2002, mostly on narcotics related charges.

How do we justify pulling the plug on ACI funding when we are seeing record numbers of extraditions to the U.S. of FARC and drug cartel members?

In 2004 alone, more than 11,000 narcoterrorists were captured. More than 7,000 terrorists have deserted their organizations since President Uribe took office. Thousands of weapons and rounds of ammunition have been surrendered. The demobilization and reincorporation of illegal armed groups are part of a process that is providing stability to the entire region.

Colombians are finally beginning to feel safer. The murder rate dropped 14 percent in 2004. It has dropped 25 percent thus far this year.

Plan Colombia is working. I have been down there several times. I have seen firsthand just a month ago the devastation that drug production and trafficking has on that country. But to those who question our investment, I would ask them to visit Colombian soldiers who have lost their limbs or their eyesight or sustained permanent disabilities in their battle to return peace to their nation and keep drugs off American streets.

On a recent trip, we accompanied Colombian National Police to a manual eradication site in the mountains and helped them pull the coca crop from mountainous terrain that helicopters cannot reach. These are dedicated people giving up their lives to destroy the drug trade and rid their country of drugs and violence and prevent their illegal importation to the United States.

Our travels have shown how critical U.S. assistance is to their government.

Of course it is not all rosy and a lot of obstacles remain. But the Uribe administration is committed to this war.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that now is the time not to turn our backs on the progress we are making. We cannot win this war on drug-supported terrorism without the proper tools.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the McGovern amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Let me say to my friend from New York, I appreciate very much the intention of the amendment. I have got to oppose it in its current form. It seems to me that this Act has some very good attributes to it, and the argument may be in some of the designated industry groups that are listed.

One of the problems is that the participating agencies currently will designate areas that are currently dominated by small businesses as small business set-asides. These are areas that in full and open competition, small businesses are going to win anyway, and by using their percentages in these areas, it means that small businesses who could use the set-asides in other areas are not able to use it. So I think what we have here is the law of unintended consequences.

We are taking areas such as lawn services, roofing, siding contractors, glass and glazing contractors, masonry, areas that in full and open competition, small businesses are winning by overwhelming margins; but the agencies are taking these areas and saying we are going to designate these as small business set-asides and use their percentages in these areas, and that means that small businesses cannot penetrate other areas.

So it is really for these reasons that I rise to oppose the amendment, because I think it shifts the burden in these cases where small businesses are currently winning open competition, and it uses the allocation for set-asides into these areas that I think small businesses could benefit in other areas, in some of the technology areas, in some of the IT areas. That is my concern.

Let me just make one point. I think the argument ought to be some of the designated industry groups in this case where maybe we see large businesses coming in and taking over, and we could work under those areas appropriately if the case can be made that small business dominance in these areas is not hit, but without that we have not added a nickel to what small businesses get under the set-aside programs. We have not added a percentage. We just shift the burden.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely because what happens is when we shift the small business set-aside allocations into these programs, we are taking it away from other programs, these areas where small businesses are designated.

I do not know about the gentlewoman's percentage of 78 percent 38 percent, but what I would argue is if there is an issue here, I know I would be happy to work with her, and I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, to look at some of these designated industry groups where perhaps small business is not dominating and was intended to, and we work on that rather than gutting the whole provision. That would be the approach that I would take. I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman on that.

But this amendment guts the whole program, and I think ultimately it is not good for the government because I think the government is not getting small business set-asides in some of the innovative areas where they can go and they are giving it to areas where small businesses tend to dominate in full and open competition. So that is my rationale for opposing the amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this does not add a percentage. This does not add a nickel to the small business set-aside program. It does not add a percentage. It just shifts the burden. And the argument ought to be going into the particular designated industry groups where the gentlewoman is claiming small businesses used to dominate and are losing out, and let us look at those and let us try to be fair in that way.

But for heaven's sake, in areas like lawn care, in some of these services levels that are low tech, let us not set aside small businesses set-asides there where small businesses dominate in full and open competition. Let us put them in areas where we can improve it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they may get it here, but they will take it away from set-asides in other areas because the overall set-aside percentages in these participating agencies does not change at all. So the problem with that is that we are shifting it and we are moving the small business set-asides into areas that small businesses also dominate.

I will refer the gentlewoman, frankly, to the statute in the areas that are the designated industry groups under the statute, and I think it is clear looking at this that many of these areas, siding contractors, roofing, masonry, framing contractors, these are areas that are traditionally dominated by small business and will continue to be.

But I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman on designated industry groups and changing that around if she can make the case.

Mr. Chairman, I too understand the gentleman's concern on particular employees. The difficulty here is if the Congress starts coming out with each and every single group trying to protect this group or the other from competitive sourcing, we lose basically one of the best tools the executive branch has to make it run more efficiently.

Federal employees win 70 percent of the A-76 competitions at this point. But in almost every case, even when they have won, they have retooled themselves and made themselves more efficient than when they started. And to cherrypick one group or another, I think we will have every Member coming to the floor trying to protect this group or the other group, and the whole thing falls apart. And if that happens, the Federal executive branch loses its major tool in trying to become more efficient and saving the taxpayers' dollars.

I do not know anything about the specifics of this one, but I know from a committee perspective we have tried to look at this, we have tried to give Federal employees appeals rights now, so that if they lose it that they can have appeals rights and things they have not had in the past. We have tried to give them protections.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would also join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in opposing this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. First of all, to my friends here, I understand their concern. I tell them that I do not know anything about this particular office. But it is not privatization; it is competitive sourcing. Basically, this allows the government sector to compete with the private sector to see how we can deliver a service to taxpayers the most efficiently.

The government wins 70 percent of these competitions, but in most cases ends up being more efficient as a result of that. They are able to retool their organizations and do things that, without the competition, the marketplace would probably not be incentivized to do.

Secondly, there are no numerical quotas or figures. In fact, Congress took those out several years ago when this administration set targeted figures in terms of the amounts of competitive sourcing they wanted to do under OMB Circular A-76. So that should not be part of this. It is not legal to be doing this, and I hope that is not driving it in this case.

But, again, for Congress to come back and cherrypick different segments and say, this is exempt, and this is exempt, basically destroys the whole system. And once again, although I am sympathetic with where the gentleman wants to go on this, I think there are other ways to accomplish it rather than coming to Congress. I think this will encourage everybody to offer these kinds of amendments, and we will lose one of the greatest tools we have toward government efficiency, and I would urge the amendment be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a strong case for this particular item. I would be happy to work with the gentleman as well in my position as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform to make sure that these employees are fully protected as we move forward on this and given the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) on an important issue regarding democracy in Venezuela.

Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, several Members of Congress went to Venezuela and heard about the intimidation by the Venezuelan Government of a democracy advocate named Maria Corina Machado. Ms. Machado is the leader of Sumate, a Venezuelan nongovernmental electoral watchdog. Currently, she is charged by the Venezuelan Government for accepting illicit foreign financial contributions from our own National Endowment For Democracy.

Recently, Ms. Machado was invited to the White House to see the President and share her concerns about the endangered state of democracy in Venezuela. This Congress should stand behind Ms. Machado and support the growth of democracy in Venezuela.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, moving to one other matter, it is my understanding that the 2006 Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations bill requires agencies to notify the Committee on Appropriations 15 days before funds are reprogrammed to implement e- government initiatives.

As the chairman of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the E-Government Act, and in fact I was one of the authors of the E- Government Act, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) if he will share information that he obtains with the Committee on Government Reform on the funding and implementation of e-government initiatives in this bill so we could be so advised.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Al Van Metre, the founder and CEO of Van Metre Company. This recognition is well deserved for his contributions to the communities of Northern Virginia.

Al Van Metre attended the U.S. Naval Academy from June 1944 to March 1945 before graduating from George Washington University with a degree in engineering. Mr. Van Metre established the Van Metre Company in 1955, since that time his company has built over 15,000 single family homes, town homes and manages 2,200 apartments throughout Northern Virginia. These dwellings proudly serve over 50,000 homeowners and residents throughout Northern Virginia.

The developments created by Van Metre Company include Lansdowne On the Potomac, Broadlands and Stone Ridge. These planned communities have received numerous Finest for Family Living Awards including the developments of Lansdowne on the Potomac in 2001, The Lee at McNair Station in 1999 and a three time winner from 1998-2000 for The Fitzgerald at Broadlands. The company, based in Burke, Virginia, has received numerous ``Major Achievements in Marketing Excellence'' awards, including the Best Community Brochure, Best Print Advertising, Best Web Site and Multi-Media Campaign for Planned Communities. The success over the last half-century, growth of the company and award winning planned communities are due to the hard work and dedication of Mr. Van Metre.

Not only has Mr. Van Metre helped to create superb living communities, but he has been an active member in the community serving as a board member for the Navy Marine Coast Guard Resident Foundation and the Naval Academy foundation. He also served as the chairman of the Race Committee of the Northern Virginia Hospice Cup and as a board member of the St. Stephen's School In Alexandria, Virginia.

With his background and support for the Naval Academy and as Chairman of the Northern Virginia Hospice Cup, it is no surprise that Mr. Van Metre is an avid and accomplished sailor. He has guided his yacht, the Running Tide, to wins at virtually every major yachting event on the East Coast. He was a five-time overall annual champion in Chesapeake Bay racing and has earned over 200 trophies in his distinguished sailing career.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Al Van Metre for helping to create planned communities that benefit numerous residents and families in Northern Virginia. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Al Van Metre on his accomplishments and in wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.