Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an urgent issue that we must address in the opening months of the next Congress.

Early next spring, the Postal Service will file for a rate increase, to be implemented in 2006. Unless Congress acts, that rate increase will be one of the largest in history--at least 15 percent, or 6 cents on a First Class stamp. That will cripple an industry already in trouble, and reverberate through our entire economy.

It would be irresponsible and reckless for us to sit back and do nothing.

The Postal Service is the center of a $900 billion industry, employing 9 million Americans in such diverse fields as manufacturing, advertising, publishing, and finance. This industry comprises 8.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

The cost of doing nothing will be steep, for the Postal Service, for the 9 million Americans whose jobs rely on the mail, and for every American who sends a birthday card, pays a bill, or orders something from a catalog or online.

Reforming the Postal Service is a crucial responsibility. The Postal Service operates under a rigid, 30-year-old legal structure that does not take into account the technological advances of the past decades. It is saddled with nearly $70 billion in retiree health costs, worker's comp claims and pension payments. Each year, the labor and infrastructure costs facing the Postal Service rise, while the volume of mail continues to fall. This is a ``death spiral'' that can only be reversed by Congressional action.

Let me make clear what will happen if we fail to act.

A failure to act is the equivalent of a back-door tax on every sector of the American economy.

A small business that now spends $5,000 a year on postage would be hit with a nearly $1,000 rate increase. And an industry like financial services would get slammed with an increase of over $600 million in postage costs annually.

Even though we're trying to postpone Internet taxation, a failure to act would raise the cost of online purchases, because consumers will pay more for shipping and handling.

Overall, the American public and American businesses will waste over $20 billion in unnecessary payments to the Postal Service over the next decade.

This does not have to happen. We have the framework for responsible, comprehensive Postal Reform in the form of legislation that has been approved unanimously by my committee, the Government Reform Committee, and by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

This legislation will force the Postal Service to act more like a business, while also resolving two issues related to the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This act placed an unusual burden on the Postal Service, making it the only major agency in the government responsible for funding the military portion of its employee retiree benefits. The Act also required the Postal Service to place into escrow any money saved through the legislation-- and I believe we should free this money, to allow the Service to make some cost-reducing and productivity-enhancing capital improvements.

I have worked with the Government Reform Committee's ranking minority member, Henry Waxman, as well as Representatives John McHugh and Danny Davis to craft legislation that will allow the Postal Service and the industry that relies on it to survive well into this century.

I urge my colleagues to come back next year ready to pass meaningful Postal Reform. There are critics who will say the bill costs too much. I say the cost of not acting is what we really cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Jennifer Hammer of Northern Virginia, a friend and neighbor who passed away after succumbing to a three-year battle with Ovarian Cancer in November 2004.

Mrs. Hammer's courage and resilience should serve as an inspiration to us all. Despite her health, she remained an active member in her community. She volunteered at her children's schools and participated in the 350-mile AIDS bicycle ride from North Carolina to the National Mall. Mrs. Hammer worked hard to train, but was most concerned about the criteria to raise $1,700 in order to participate. In the end, she raised over $4,000 and finished the four-day ride with energy to spare.

On Election Day, Mrs. Hammer voted on the way to what would be her final surgery. She was so weak that the voting officials had to bring a voting machine to the car for her. She thanked them and then left for the hospital.

Mrs. Hammer touched many lives and is survived by her beloved husband Tom and children Adam and Samantha. Over Thanksgiving weekend, when many friends were out of town for the holiday, almost 600 people came to a memorial service to celebrate her life.

Mrs. Hammer showed us how to enjoy life in the good times and be positive and full of abundant grace in the worst of times. She was at peace in the end because of her faith in God and because she knew that she lived fully while on earth. Jennifer made a huge impact on many and was loved by all. Our lives were better for having known her, and we will continue to draw inspiration from her strength and compassion.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the life and work Mrs. Hammer, and express my deepest condolences to all who knew and loved her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a series of legislative provisions that were included in the Transportation and Treasury section of the Omnibus Appropriations Act without consulting or even notifying the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Government Reform.

We strenuously oppose section 522 requiring that each Federal agency have a privacy officer to carry out duties relating to the privacy and protection of personally identifiable information. These Federal information security functions are an intrinsic part of existing Federal information policy.

They are the responsibility of the agency chief information officer in the agencies. Therefore, privacy officers are unnecessary. They are duplicative, and it is confusing.

Further, section 522 attempts to address information security concerns that are already addressed in the Federal Information Security Management Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, the Electronic Government Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. These laws are currently implemented by Federal agencies.

Section 522 merely creates a layer of bureaucracy that contradicts existing Federal information policy currently executed by the CIOs.

The Committee on Government Reform and Federal agencies have worked hard to ensure the Federal Government has coherent information security policies and guidelines in place. Section 522 reverses the progress the Federal Government has made to modernize itself in order to function more efficiently and cost-effectively in a digital age.

In addition, this section is a fine example of legislating on appropriation bills. But worse, there was no attempt to even discuss this provision with our committee, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal information policy. For years we have performed an aggressive legislative and oversight agenda.

We have introduced a bill now to repeal this section, but the disregard for the committee of jurisdiction in this section of the omnibus did not stop there. In July, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform raised and the Chair sustained 12 points of order against legislative provisions in the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act. Nine of these were rewritten in the omnibus, in violation of House rules, without consulting our committee, and despite our requests that these provisions not be reinserted including:

1. An amendment that runs contrary to the reauthorization of the Drug Control Policy Act passed by the House last year; and

2. Several legislative provisions that will add unneeded red tape and expense to the Federal procurement process.

What does it say about our institutional integrity, our rules, ours state of affairs, when points of order are sustained and subsequently ignored.

My concerns have been overshadowed by a certain tax provision that also appeared in the Omnibus. But they are symptoms of the same disease.

It is the willingness of appropriators and their staff to legislate on appropriations bills without consulting the committees of jurisdiction that caused the mess over the ill-considered tax provision and this trend is the basis of my concern as well.

The authorizing committees are Congress's experts on the law, and the appropriations process should not be used as an end-run around their consideration.

I recognize that politics and process will sometimes require that legislation be included in appropriations; and,

I have always been willing to work with appropriators to include suitable legislation in their bills. Looking forward to next Congress, it is my hope that this episode will inspire a greater willingness on the part of the appropriators and their staffs to consult and cooperate with the authorizers before legislating on appropriations acts.

Finally, I ask for the appropriators support in repealing the badly considered Chief Privacy Officer provision that was surreptitiously included in the Omnibus at the 11th hour.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great delight to announce the FY2005 omnibus appropriations package that is scheduled to be approved by Congress today includes the text of legislation I authored, H.R. 2792, that reauthorizes refugee eligibility for children of Vietnamese re-education camp survivors.

The Communist government of Vietnam, by its actions in imprisoning Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, and ordinary citizens whose only crime is to speak out for freedom and democracy, is saying loudly and clearly and consistently to the United States: We want your investment dollars, and we are willing to learn from your economic system; but your values of religious and political freedom are not welcome.

We need to do more to respond to this message of oppression with our own message of freedom. Human rights need to be central to our foreign policy toward Vietnam. One small step we can take is to save as many as possible of the people who are still being persecuted by the Communist authorities because of their wartime associations with the United States or simply because they share our values.

Until April 1, 1995, former Vietnamese prisoners of war who were accepted for resettlement by the United States as refugees could bring their sons and daughters, even those above the age of 21, so long as they had never married and were members of the refugee parent's household. On April 1, 1995, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) changed its interpretation of the law, to exclude children who were over 21, even if they were unmarried and living with their parents. This change in policy forced a brutal choice on ex-political prisoners: either decline the opportunity to find freedom in the United States, or abandon their children in a country that has persecuted them.

For South Vietnamese combat veterans and others who had suffered with their children long terms in re-education camps because of their wartime associations with the United States, this imposed a particularly harsh burden. These children had already been without their fathers while they were in re-education camps, in some cases for 10 or 15 years. Then the refugees were given a choice between living forever under a Communist dictatorship or leaving their children behind when they immigrated to the United States. These children are marked as members of a ``counterrevolutionary family'' and denied educational and employment opportunities by the government of Vietnam. They would certainly go on suffering in Vietnam because of their family's participation in the war.

Recognizing these realities, Congress on three occasions has adopted the ``McCain amendment,'' which changed the INS interpretation of the law, so that refugees who are survivors of re-education camps can once again be accompanied by the unmarried sons and daughters.

The latest extension of the McCain amendment expired on September 20, 2001. Hence, I introduced and Congress passed H.R. 1840 in the 107th Congress to reauthorize the McCain amendment through September 30, 2003. The original language did not apply to children who were mistakenly rejected before April 1, 1995, for reasons other than age. Even if new evidence surfaced that showed someone rejected before 1995 was actually the child of a refugee, families had no recourse to challenge the decision. The original language also excluded refugee sons and daughters who were denied access to an INS interview by corrupt and/or vindictive Communist officials who often serve as gatekeepers for the U.S. refugee program. My bill fixed these problems. In addition, the legislation permitted unmarried children over the age of 21 to immigrate to the United States even if the surviving parent is currently living in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, today I stand here before you as this important provision has once again expired. Fortunately, with the help of Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the text of H.R. 2792, which extends this provision until September 30, 2005, was added to the FY2005 omnibus appropriations package that we are set to approve today.

H.R. 2792 is a fair and equitable bill that provides family reunification and allows us to keep our promise to the people who fought alongside U.S. troops during the Vietnam war. Their courage and valor must never be forgotten.

I want to thank Senator McCain for his leadership and his staff for their assistance in passing the H.R. 2792 language. Furthermore, I would like to thank the co sponsors of my bill Representatives Zoe Lofgren, Chris Smith, Jim Moran, and Loretta Sanchez who have given this issue their steadfast support.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2657) to amend part III of title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of programs under which supplemental dental and vision benefits are made available to Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents, to expand the contracting authority of the Office of Personnel Management, and for other purposes.

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

I rise in strong support of S. 2657, the Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act.

The Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, is one of the Federal Government's most important tools as we seek to recruit and retain the best Federal workforce that this country has to offer. It covers over 8.6 million

individuals, including 2.2 million Federal and postal employees, 1.9 million Federal annuitants, and 4.5 million dependents; and offers the widest selection of health plans in the country, enabling enrollees to compare the costs, benefits, and features of different plans. However, this program will not remain a model for excellence in employer- provided health care coverage unless we continue to explore avenues to enhance the care and the choices provided.

Through the FEHBP, the Federal Government fulfills its responsibilities as an employer to contribute to health and well-being by providing comprehensive high-quality, affordable health care for its employees, while also providing an example and a model for improving the performance of the U.S. health care system as a whole. While a fine example for comprehensive care, the FEHBP currently offers minimal dental and vision benefits. Over 15 years ago, the Office of Personnel Management stopped allowing plans to add new dental and vision packages or to enhance packages they already had in place. As a result, the FEHBP has not kept pace in these areas, as an overwhelming majority of private sector plans provide dental and vision benefits.

In addition, there has been a groundswell among Federal employees and annuitants through numerous surveys and focus groups on this issue. More than any benefit, they want better coverage for dental and vision care. This will change with the passage of this important legislation.

The bill before us now will establish a voluntary, supplemental program under which Federal employees and annuitants may purchase dental and vision insurance as part of the FEHBP. This important legislation follows the design of the current long-term care insurance program whose premiums are wholly employee-funded, but allows the Federal Government to leverage its purchasing power to lower the cost of care in these areas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the efforts of my distinguished counterpart in the other body, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. Senator Collins was instrumental in the drafting of this legislation. I commend her for her dedication on issues important to our Nation's civil service. I look forward to continuing to work with her on these important issues in the 109th Congress. I also thank my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill,

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 4012) to amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to reauthorize for 5 additional years the public school and private school tuition assistance programs established under the Act.

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. 4012.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4012, legislation to authorize the District of Columbia College Access Act for 2 additional years.

The College Access Program has been a key component of the District's revitalization efforts in recent years. It is critical that Congress continue to support its partnership with the District of Columbia in providing access to higher education resources and opportunities.

Congress established the D.C. College Access Program in 1999 for two primary reasons. First, the program addressed the fact that the District of Columbia does not have a State university system like most States do for its high school graduates. The program essentially leveled the playing field for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital by enabling them to attend colleges and universities around the country at instate tuition rates. This is State universities around the country.

The program's second purpose was to deter tax-paying families in the District from moving to surrounding States in order to take advantage of instate higher education options available to residents in other States that were not available to District residents at the time that would deprive the District of very much needed stability in tax revenue should they leave the jurisdiction.

I cannot tell you how many mothers and fathers have approached me to say thank you. We were going to have to leave the District of Columbia so our kid could go to college, but thanks to this program we can stay; or young people from the district that come up to me and say thank you for this act. I am now able to afford to go to a good college.

At a Committee on Government Reform hearing on this program last March, it is clear that the program has been more than an anecdotal success over the past 5 years. D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams testified that since creation of the program, the number of high school graduates in the District continuing on to college has increased 28 percent. The national average over the same period was an increase of approximately 5 percent.

The impact of the College Access Program is undeniable. According to a survey of high school graduates in the District, the vast majority of students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of the grants made a difference in their decision to attend college and was a key factor in deciding which college to attend.

H.R. 4012 represents a shot at a better education and, in turn, a better life for hundreds of D.C. students.

The House passed a 5-year authorization for the program in July, but after discussions with the other body, we have agreed to limit the reauthorization to 2 years while we in Congress continue to work with the city to refine the scope and the mission of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4012 and to continue to support a level playing field for high school graduates in the District.

I also want to acknowledge my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her help in starting this bill and working through this legislation today as we reauthorize it, and my colleague, the gentleman from Alexandria, Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has also been very helpful and instrumental in getting this legislation originally established and reauthorizing it today.

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

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

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

I thank my colleagues for their kind words and their efforts in working together on this legislation, and I would urge all Members to support the Senate amendments to H.R. 4012.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3184, the Streamlined Sales and

Use Tax Act. My name was added in error.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor John D. Ringle and T.

Maxine Ringle for their contributions to Fairfax County, Virginia.

In the mid-1960's and 1970's, much of the Fairfax Station and Clifton areas of the Occoquan Watershed were zoned by Fairfax County for one- acre residential lots. During this time, there was little local public consciousness of the benefits of maintaining the rural nature of the land in order to protect the quality of the drinking water supply from the Occoquan Reservoir.

John and Maxine Ringle owned a substantial portion of the land in Fairfax Station and Clifton and were free to direct the division of that land into one-acre lots. Developing this land would have led to extensive construction, a network of new roads, deforesting the wooded area, and irrevocably destroying the rural nature of this area of Fairfax County.

The Ringles recognized the unique nature of this extensive undeveloped area and envisioned it as a limited-development area where its natural beauty could be preserved. Owners could enjoy the amenities of a rural life while living only a few minutes from the urban offerings of Fairfax County, Virginia and the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. John and Maxine had the foresight to protect this rural area by creating eleven separate developments with five-acre lots and establish binding covenants to preserve this lot size.

In 1982, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, downzoned 41,000 acres in the Fairfax Station and Clifton areas to legally establish a natural protective buffer area in the watershed of the Occoquan Reservoir, currently the source of water for over a million Northern Virginia residents. Without the vision and actions of John and Maxine Ringle in the preceding decades, Fairfax County would not have been able to enact this downzoning which continues to protect and preserve the Occoquan Watershed and Reservoir for Northern Virginia residents.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors proclaimed July 26, 2004, as John D. Ringle and T. Maxine Ringle Day. This honor truly is well deserved.

Mr. Speaker, the Ringle's visionary and environmentally sound approach to the development of the Occoquan Watershed enabled Fairfax County to ultimately preserve the Occoquan Watershed and Reservoir for the benefit of all residents. I ask that my colleagues join me in commending John and Maxine Ringle.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4324) to amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the provisions limiting certain election opportunities available to individuals participating in the Thrift Savings Plan, and for other purposes, 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 H.R. 4324.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 4324, a bill that eliminates the open season for employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan. This legislation was reported from the Committee on Government Reform by a voice vote on July 31, and I am pleased to see it considered by the whole House today.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the TSP offers Federal employees the same retirement savings opportunities that private companies afford their employees under traditional 401(k) plans.

The TSP is the largest defined contribution retirement plan in the world, with nearly three and a half million participants and over $143 billion in assets.

This legislation will allow TSP participants to make or modify their salary contributions at any time. Currently, Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the TSP are only provided two biannual periods to begin, adjust or end their contributions. This bill will give much-needed flexibility to participants of the Federal Government's retirement plan.

Every day, Federal employees across the Nation and around the globe perform critical duties to keep this Nation running smoothly.

Away from work, they experience all of life's events, births and deaths in the family, new homes, new jobs, salary adjustments and so on. With enactment of H.R. 4324, TSP participants can adopt their retirement savings to meet their changing circumstances.

Next year, I intend to offer additional legislation that will abolish the TSP open seasons entirely, but today, during the second open season after beginning Federal service, participants can earn matching funds up to 5 percent of their salary from their employing agencies. I believe allowing participants to secure these matching funds immediately is an important and deserved incentive for Federal employees to save. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which administers the TSP, supports that change, and the Board supports H.R. 4324 as well.

The Committee on Government Reform, the committee of jurisdiction for Federal employee issues, was limited by budget constraints this Congress from moving a bill that would totally eliminate open seasons. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see H.R. 4324 advancing today.

I want to recognize the efforts of my distinguished counterpart in the other body, the gentlewoman from Maine, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. She has worked very closely with me on today's bill to ensure that Federal employees will have the same retirement savings flexibilities enjoyed by many in the private sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Neighborhood Watch Program of Fairfax County, Virginia.

In the 25 years since its inception, the Fairfax County Neighborhood Watch Program has achieved great success, with over 900 community programs established since its inception. As former Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I can personally attest to the program's accomplishment.

The Fairfax County Neighborhood Watch boasts countless volunteers who have selflessly committed themselves to informing local police of suspicious activities. While it is financially and logistically impossible to place a police officer on every street corner, the neighborhood watch has provided Fairfax County with an effective alternative. Neighborhood watch volunteers have become the eyes and ears of local police, deterring crime and saving taxpayers millions of dollars.

Those who take the time to cast a watchful eye on their surroundings ensure a safer, friendlier place to live. Through committed neighborhood watches, these participants have proven that community involvement can make a difference.

Fairfax County Neighborhood Watch participants have bridged culture and language gaps in the name of collective security. By recognizing shared community values, Fairfax County Neighborhood Watch has facilitated improved understanding and relations between individuals from a variety of backgrounds. One of the greatest assets of neighborhood watch is its ability to bring neighbors together.

One of the most active branches of the Fairfax County Neighborhood Watch is the Camelot Neighborhood Watch Program, which is the oldest continuously active neighborhood watch in the United States. This highly accomplished program serves as an impressive model for other organizations across the county and nation.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the Fairfax County Neighborhood Watch Program for 25 years of dedicated service to its community. Programs like neighborhood watch are vital in our efforts to combat crime. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the Fairfax County Neighborhood Watch's past accomplishments and in wishing the program continued success in the many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the bicentennial anniversary of the City of Fairfax, Virginia.

Two centuries ago, the Town of Providence, a small community built around the Fairfax County Courthouse, was chartered by an act of the General Assembly. This steadily growing center of business and government was renamed Fairfax in 1874. During the Civil War, Providence was home to Company D, 17th Virginia Infantry, the ``Fairfax Rifles'' who fought in a skirmish on the courthouse lawn, and witnessed Confederate President Jefferson Davis meeting with his generals at the Willcoxon Tavern.

In 1892, the Town of Fairfax was incorporated. At the beginning of World War II, the Town of Fairfax had a volunteer fire department, central water and sewer systems, a town library and a high school. In 1961, Fairfax was incorporated as an independent city.

Since its humble beginnings as the Town of Providence, the City of Fairfax has blossomed. It is now a vibrant city that has played an important role in Virginia's history.

The City of Fairfax is the home of world-class educational facilities, thriving businesses, and is a diverse and prosperous community. It is one of the economic and intellectual epicenters of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In 2005, the City of Fairfax will host a year-long celebration with special events to honor this bicentennial anniversary.

This milestone appropriately coincides with the Old Town Fairfax redevelopment project, which began this past July. The improvements made during this project will transform Fairfax into a city for the 21st century and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate the citizens of the City of Fairfax on the occasion of their bicentennial anniversary. I call upon my colleagues to join me in celebrating the history of this great city, and in wishing for its continued prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. The purpose of this landmark legislation is to address the problems and weaknesses identified by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States by improving the intelligence and security operations of the Federal Government.

I am proud of what we have achieved in this legislation on behalf of the American people, who understandably are clamoring for change. It accomplishes the goal of revamping our intelligence network and makes other

changes necessary to protect our national security.

I would like to elaborate on a few of the provisions of the larger bill that fall within our jurisdiction at the Committee on Government Reform and why we believe they are critical to this effort.

One is executive reorganization authority for intelligence agencies. H.R. 10 would give the President the power to submit reorganization plans, limited to the intelligence community, to Congress for a guaranteed up-or-down vote.

We cannot afford to assume this legislation is a panacea that will somehow be the last word on intelligence reform. Reorganization authority is authority every President had government-wide from 1932 to 1984. It enables the executive branch to come forward with a plan that would come to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendment. The President should have the ability to make further tweaks to the organization without having to worry about his proposal getting watered-down or just plain blocked in Congress over petty jurisdictional fights between committees. Congress, of course, retains the ultimate say.

We have enhanced information-sharing. This legislation would task the President with establishing a trusted and secure information-sharing environment to promote the sharing of intelligence information and to change the culture in the Federal Government from a ``need to know'' to a ``need to share'' basis. This initiative is the result of collaborative efforts of multiple committees of jurisdiction.

The rationale for this language is straightforward. As a Nation, we must be able to identify terrorist threats and defeat them. Our success depends on collecting, analyzing, and appropriately sharing information found in data bases, transactions, and other sources.

Streamlined financial disclosure for appointees in the intelligence community. Just about anyone who studies the Presidential appointments process realizes that it is broken. It takes too long to confirm individuals to key positions, and the process itself often drives away some of those best qualified to serve. Financial disclosure requirements are supposed to protect against conflicts of interest concerns; but they have become proxy statements for a nominee's net worth, with more detail than is necessary, extending the vetting process so that nominees cannot even move forward to Senate confirmation. This legislation would return to the original intent of financial disclosures.

An improved security clearance process. This legislation would assign security clearance management and oversight to the Office of the National Intelligence Director. The NID would set uniform standards and policies and require reciprocity among agencies. This would enable an individual with a top secret clearance at, say, Treasury to retain that clearance should he or she move to another agency.

Previous efforts to enforce reciprocity have failed, but this legislation finally addresses this important part of the process by putting an end to the time and money-wasting practice of redundant security clearance investigations and adjudications. This redundancy drives up the cost of doing business, and this cost is ultimately passed on to the taxpayers.

New Federal standards for identification cards and birth certificates. We need to have confidence that when someone shows a State driver's license to board a plane or a State birth certificate to get a passport, that the ID is valid. We need to know that people are who they say they are.

Is this a national ID card? No. We are simply saying the Federal Government must have documents that it can trust, and it is perfectly within its right to establish minimum standards for Federal acceptance.

This important provision would provide grant money to help States meet the new Federal guidelines and gives them 3 years to comply. Though States have made strides in improving the security of driver's licenses and identification since 9/11, the commission outlined the need to establish minimum standards as a framework for improvement.

This language was crafted with the assistance of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the National Association For Public Health and Information Systems who administer these programs for the States. They have been hard at work developing studies, best practices and guidelines on this issue, especially since the terrorist attacks on our Nation; and this legislation closely follows those recommendations for action. Importantly, this provision is also strongly supported by the 9/11 victims' families.

A revitalized FBI workforce. H.R. 10 would provide for retention bonuses and critical pay authorities to help the FBI improve its intelligence directorate. It also would allow for delays in mandatory retirements and the creation of a Reserve Service so the agency can reactivate retired employees with very specialized skills.

The improvements to the operations of the Federal Government that are included in H.R. 10 are essential to making this country safer. I urge my colleagues to support this carefully crafted legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), an able member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the former Secretary of State of the State of Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend, unfortunately, other committees shared jurisdiction on this, so when the Committee on Rules wrote it, we did not get our committee language.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

What abrogates our responsibility is taking the substitute that is offered by the other side. Basically we are saying to the other body, we are going to take your version and adopt your version. We have a lot of good ideas that emanate from this side of the Capitol. Those ideas will then go into a conference, and we can take the best of both.

The Congress does not abrogate their responsibility by allowing the President to submit for an up-or-down vote, the changes they wish to make in the intelligence community; we get to vote them up or down. But we do circumvent some of the jurisdictional battles that so often prolong these fights and make us very inefficient. I might add, this is authority that we had for Presidents for 50 years prior to 1984.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time as I have the right to close.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank my friends on the other side in the committee for working cordially with us to improve this legislation. I know we have some disagreements.

I want to take up just a minute to correct what I think is misinformation about this legislation, namely, that some of the sections of this are not within the scope of the 9/11 Commission's report. I want to walk through the provisions that were added at the request of our committee. All of these initiatives were things that the committee had been working on to make our country safer prior to the release of the report, but they can also be traced to report language.

Our language on identity security, for example, is identified as an urgent need on page 309 of the report, where it says, ``The Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identity documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.''

Our language on appointments reform is in direct response to a finding in the report on page 422: ``Since a catastrophic event could occur with little or no notice, we should minimize as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments.''

Our security clearance language is based both on work that we have been doing in the committee and the commission's report which said on page 422 that the Federal Government needs uniform application investigation in adjudication procedures, a single database to store clearance information, and an expedited clearing process for Presidential transition team personnel.

Our language to revitalize the FBI workforce responds to a finding in the report on page 425, where it says ``a specialized and integrated national security workforce should be established at the FBI consisting of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists who are recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure a deep expertise in intelligence and national security.''

And our language on information-sharing and security addresses the commission's finding on page 400 that we need to unify the many participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a network-based information-sharing system that transcends traditional governmental boundaries.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, all of these provisions that were marked up by our committees and included in the version on H.R. 10 today are direct responses to problems or weaknesses identified by the 9/11 Commission.

I take exception to Members who think the other body had thorough knowledge and exhausted all of the ideas on this.

We look to a good conference where we can iron out some of these, but more importantly I think we thoroughly address some of the concerns raised by the commission. At a time when the terrorists are moving dollars electronically and communicating in nanoseconds, we have to give the executive branch a rapid response for additional reorganization changes as well.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10 and reject the Menendez substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in strong opposition to the Menendez amendment. Quite simply, the substitute provides fewer safeguards against another 9/11. Rather than participating in the legislative process by offering constructive amendments during the House debate, the minority has unfortunately chosen to simply cobble together various provisions from H.R. 10 and various incarnations of Senate legislation and repackage them as the Democratic position on homeland security. The resulting package is a scattered jumble of proposals that do not fit into cohesive strategy for protecting the homeland.

On the issue of driver's license security, for example. Two conflicting deadlines for compliance by the States are established: the first deadline being 2 years from the promulgation of minimum standards; the second deadline is to be established by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

In contrast, the language of H.R. 10 is strong and clear, exactly what this landmark legislation needs.

Additionally, the Menendez amendment is replete with the kind of layered bureaucracy we took great pains to avoid in H.R. 10. Our aim was a nimble, flexible, flat structure that could improve intelligence gathering and analysis. The substitute amendment, by contrast, is loaded with a chief information officer, a chief human capital officer, a chief financial officer, an out-of-control Inspector General, a comptroller, an ombudsman, multiple privacy officers, and a civil liberties board with unlimited subpoena power. Our bill is about better government. The substitute is about bigger government.

Equally troubling to our committee in particular is the fact that such basic necessities as personnel and acquisition authorities have been scattered throughout the amendment with different and conflicting authorities being haphazardly assigned to different officials within the NID. Our committee specializes in agency organizational matters. That is what we do day in and day out. The substitute's organizational structure is no way to set up a new entity, and I urge opposition to the Menendez amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Paula D. Haveron, who retired on July 31, 2004, after completing over 42 years of Federal Service.

Mrs. Haveron began her Civil Service career in 1958 as a clerk- stenographer in the Office of Air Force Civil Engineers.

Having demonstrated her competence in working with Members of Congress and their staffs, Mrs. Haveron was selected for service in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison Inquiry Division, in 1960.

Over the years, she served in numerous roles, culminating in her current duties as a Congressional Liaison Representative in 1997. In this capacity, Mrs. Haveron has been responsible for well over 100,000 constituent inquiries, from all 50 states and territories. In fact, she was the first civilian action officer to draft and successfully staff a Congressional response for signature by the Air Force Chief of Staff.

During her 42 years of work in the Office of Legislative Liaison, Mrs. Haveron has provided dedicated and professional service to both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. She has developed close working relationships with many of our staffs, and her efforts have greatly enhanced congressional understanding of Air Force personnel matters. The distinctive accomplishments of Mrs. Paula D. Haveron highlight a long and distinguished career in the service of the Federal Government, and reflect great credit upon herself and the Department of the Air Force.