Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of House Resolution 99. This resolution honors the top-ranked University of Nebraska women's volleyball team for their victory over the second-ranked Stanford University Cardinals. The Huskers rallied to defeat Stanford 3-1 for their third NCAA Division I women's volleyball championship in front of a record crowd of 17,209 fans at the Quest Center in Omaha.

Led by four All-Americans, including national player of the year Sarah Pavan, the Huskers won the school's ninth Big 12 title in 11 years with a 19-1 Big 12 record, and a 33-1 overall record. This is the second national title that the team has won with head coach John Cook leading the team.

I extend my congratulations to Coach John Cook, all of the hardworking players, the fans and the University of Nebraska. I am happy to join my good friends and colleagues, Representatives Smith, Fortenberry, and Terry, in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments, and wish all involved success in the future.

My only regret, since I enjoy playing volleyball myself, is that I never had the opportunity to watch them play in person. But it would have been a real pleasure, had I been able to.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Smith, the sponsor of this resolution, I apologize on his behalf that he is unable to be here, but he dearly wanted to be here to speak on this resolution. In his absence, I am next pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the previous speaker for commending me for my support of Nebraska athletes. That is certainly true, except for one time when I was invited to speak to a conference at the University of Nebraska. At this conference, I was speaking on teaching better mathematics in elementary schools. Then I saw a huge billboard as I was driving into Lincoln to give the speech, and I saw how badly they needed my speech on mathematics, because there was a big billboard that announced ``Welcome to the University of Nebraska. Home of the number one football team in America.'' Well, that year, of course, Michigan was the number one team, but Nebraska refused to concede that.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 120, recognizing African American spirituals as a national treasure.

Simply defined, spirituals are the songs created and first sung by African Americans during the times of slavery. These songs should be celebrated as a part of the American culture today, for they are the source from which gospel, jazz and blues evolved. The lyrics of these songs are tightly linked with the lives of their authors and were inspired by the message of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of the Bible.

The most pervasive message conveyed by spirituals is that of an

enslaved people yearning to be set free. The slaves believed they understood better than anyone what freedom truly meant in both a spiritual and a physical sense, and I believe they were correct in believing that.

The Old Testament Scriptures that are referenced in their songs spoke of deliverance in this world, and they believed God would deliver them from bondage just as he had delivered the people of Israel.

These spirituals are different from hymns and psalms, because their creators used them as a way of sharing the hard condition of being a slave while also singing about their love and faith in God. They used the songs to teach their young, to record their history, and to heal their pain. These songs awakened possibilities in their lives and inspired so many to dream.

Because the slaves were forbidden to learn how to read and write, they had to find ways to communicate secretly. The spirituals were a medium for several layers of communication and meaning.

Throughout the 20th century the spirituals experienced a renaissance as African Americans documented their struggles for equality. During the 1950s and 1960s, before and during rallies for civil rights, demonstrators often sang spirituals such as, ``We Shall Overcome,'' and, believe it or not, ``This Little Light of Mine,'' one of my favorite songs in my childhood.

The lyrics of these new spirituals dealt with improvement and with a new kind of freedom. Many of them were inspired by social problems such as segregation, drug and alcohol abuse, and a basic lack of human equality. Today the congregation of my church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and so many other churches in our community and across the country, continues to sing these spirituals. They inspire in us the human struggle for freedom and remind us of the lessons of history.

I am honored to stand here today in support of House Resolution 120 to express the deepest gratitude and recognition to the former enslaved African Americans for their gifts to our Nation, including their spiritual music and oral history. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

It always amazes me how the Lord manages to turn evil to good. And this is a good example of that; how under the terrible abuse and sin of slavery came the beautiful spirituals that we are honoring in this particular resolution. It is a real national treasure. It is something that I grew up with.

I recall my family, in which we had a number of musicians. Very frequently we were singing Negro spirituals, and in groups at church we would sing Negro spirituals, and yet look where this music came from, out of the terrible black mark on the history of this country when we had slavery over half the Nation. And yet the human response guided by God came out of these people and produced this beautiful, beautiful music. It is a heritage we all have, it is a heritage we must enjoy and, above all, a heritage that we must honor, as we are honoring in this resolution today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 512, which establishes a commission to study the possible creation of a national museum of the American Latino community. As you know, this bill mirrors H.R. 2134, which was referred to the Committee on House Administration in the last Congress and which I was pleased to guide through that committee and present to the House for passage on September 27 of last year. It is only our regret that it did not pass the Senate.

The Latino American community is often recognized for its rich traditions, its sense of community, and deeply rooted beliefs which are woven throughout the fabric of American history. As the Nation's fastest growing ethnic community, the Latino population in America has more than doubled in size in the last 10 years to over 40 million, and continues to grow.

The creation of a national museum of the American Latino community would enable Latino Americans to tell their story in their own words and would create a destination for students, families and visitors that would accurately depict Latino American history.

In order to explore the possibility of creating such a museum, the legislation before us specifies that a commission be created with 23 members, seven of whom would be appointed by the President, and three voting and are non-voting. Each would be appointed by the Speaker, the House Republican leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate Republican leader.

Once appointed, the commissioners would assess the cost of the museum, its impact on other Hispanic and Latino-related museums, identify a possible location for the museum, and propose guidelines on the museum's operation. The commission would also work closely with the Latino American community during the design and development phase to ensure that the museum accurately captures the Latino American experience.

I urge my colleagues to, once again, support this important legislation which is the first step in creating a national museum of the American Latino community that will serve as a testament to the vibrant history and tradition of Latino Americans. And I would just be delighted to eventually see this constructed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being the skunk at the garden party, I would like to add a postscript expressing my concern about the proliferation of museums on the Mall and what this may do to the Mall. As you recall, the Mall was designed many, many years ago as a gathering place for America, and it has nobly served that purpose. I believe it is very important that we, in building any additional museums, not impinge on that intent.

So establishing location is I think going to be one of the most difficult parts of the work of this Commission, and I wish them well. But I think it is extremely important that we preserve the National Mall as the gathering place for America and make certain that any additional buildings on the Mall fit well with that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I would join my colleague from Maryland in commending Jay Eagen and Karen Haas for the tremendous job they have done, and, before Karen, Jeff Trandahl, who served temporarily as CAO during the bridge time before the selection of Mr. Eagen, and who also served as the Clerk of the House very ably.

They both, Jay Eagen and Karen Haas, have done a great job in that office. The House has run very, very well as a result, and I commend them and wish them well in the future. I am certain that they have bright futures based on the excellent work that they did here.

I also would like to comment about the appointments that have been made. The new appointment for the Clerk, Ms. Miller, from everything I see, is an outstanding appointment. We recognize that as traditionally the appointment of the Speaker and can be made solely by the Speaker and has been in the past.

I look forward to good things from her. She is obviously very capable, has an outstanding record in working in the House, the Senate, and various other places. I look forward to good work from her.

In regard to the selected candidate for Chief Administrative Officer for the House, Mr. Beard, I do not object to his appointment. He is, I think, of relatively good background and should be able to manage the job, at least I seriously hope so.

But I have serious concerns about the lack of transparency and the selection process that resulted in his appointment. Just to give a better history, when I first arrived here, it was shortly before the Republicans took over the majority, and there had been considerable confusion in the House. We had the bank scandal, the post office scandal and so forth. A position was created, I forget the precise title, but something along the line of the director of the nonlegislative and financial functions of the House of Representatives.

The Speaker at that time, who was a Democrat, since they were in the majority, appointed a person to fill that post. It was General Wishart, I believe, and he resigned after several months saying basically he could not do the job, given the parameters that were imposed upon it.

When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, they also appointed, and it was largely a Speaker's appointment at that time, appointed someone to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the House. That position was created and described by the new majority.

Mr. Faulkner had a good resume and had a lot of good ideas, but, frankly, did not really meet the needs that we had for that position at that time. We then decided, and I believe Mr. Hoyer was on the committee at the same time with me, and we simply decided that we had to make this as nonpartisan a position as possible.

So we formed a group, two Republicans, two Democrats, and they conducted a nationwide search with a search firm to find the best person for the Chief Administrative Officer position.

They ended up selecting someone from the House of Representatives, someone who was familiar with it, but also someone with extensive administrative background who did a tremendous job of operating this institution since that time.

The main point I want to make is a process was set up that was bipartisan. It resulted in an excellent appointment, and I believe we should use that same process again.

In fact, I felt so strongly about it, I sent a letter to the Speaker last week pointing out that we should use that same process again. Barely was the letter delivered that she announced publicly that she had selected a new CAO, without using that process at all, without input from the minority party. Simply, we had the courtesy of chatting with the new appointee, but nothing to say in the appointment or whether or not that person should have the appointment.

I have met with him; I recognize he has considerable administrative ability. He has been around a long time, but I am very concerned because we did not use the same process. I think this new appointee is going to owe his allegiance to only one person, that is the Speaker of the House, and I don't believe that is the best way to operate the House of Representatives.

At the same time, should anything deleterious or improper happen, we recognize where the responsibility for that will lie, because it will be with the person who made the appointment.

But I have firsthand knowledge, having served on the House Administration Committee now for over 12 years, firsthand knowledge of the important role the Chief Administrative Officer plays in the House operations, and it is an extremely important job.

This is a complex organization on the Hill, over 10,000 employees. The position has many responsibilities that are of significant consequence to the House of Representatives.

While the proper administration of the House is ultimately the responsibility of the majority, the successful operation of the House is most certainly not a partisan manner.

Republicans and Democrats alike maintain a shared investment in preserving and building upon the professional improvements made by the House Chief Administrative Officer over the last 12 years.

In 1997, as I mentioned, the last occasion a new CAO was appointed, a search committee was constituted that, as I said, required a unanimous decision from all search committee members in order to select a candidate for the position of Chief Administrative Officer.

That last provision, I think, is very important, to ensure that it was not a partisan position required that both Republicans and both Democrats had to vote to select the final candidate for the position.

At that time, our current House majority leader, my colleague from Maryland, stated that the formulation of a search committee comprised of the leaders of both parties ``was done to assure that we would have a bipartisan agreement on an administrator for the business of the House.''

Mr. Hoyer also stated that what this House needs is a bipartisan and effectively nonpartisan way to assure ourselves and the American people that the business of the House, the paying of our bills, the managing of our information systems, all of that which has nothing to do with the formulation of the policy, but everything to do with the effective management of the people's House, is being done in a proper fashion.

Now, I am not quoting this to throw the words in Mr. Hoyer's face. That is not my intent at all. It is simply my intent to show how at that time we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement. That bipartisan agreement, which Mr. Hoyer spoke of, resulted in the appointment of Jay Eagen, our current Chief Administrative Officer, who has served us so well for a number of years.

Under Mr. Eagen's tenure, just as an example, the House has achieved eight consecutive clean opinions from independent auditors, an impressive result by any measure. This should be contrasted with the result when the Republicans first took office, we asked for an independent outside audit, and the auditors came back and said the books are such a mess, we cannot even audit them; you will have to construct an entire new financial management system.

I was pleased that since I had helped develop the computer system that I was able to help develop a system that was appropriate for that task. I think all of this together has led to the clean audits that we have had for a number of years.

I certainly support the comments that Mr. Hoyer made some years ago. They were very appropriate. They described the procedure accurately; and his points, as he made them, I totally agree that the appointment of a post was such a significant impact to this institution, we should be able to put aside our party affiliations and work together to find a suitable candidate.

I wish I could make a comparable statement today. I wish that such a bipartisan process had been followed this time. Instead, I am left only to express my sincere disappointment that it did not take place.

Let me make it clear, the qualifications of Mr. Beard are not under attack; but the process that Speaker Pelosi administered to make this appointment is. I think we should have had the same process, and I am disappointed that the Speaker chose not to do that.

Without a fair, open and competitive process, there simply is no way to determine whether the selection is in the best interest of the House, and the complete absence of transparency is cause for alarm for those who value the integrity of this institution.

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

Yes, I have several.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, a newly appointed member of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his comments.

I would also echo his comments about Mrs. Miller. I was astounded at her resume. In fact, I would love to have a resume that complete myself. She has served government in so many different agencies and in so many different ways that I am certain that she will perform very, very well as the Clerk of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. McCarthy of California, a brand new member of the Committee on House Administration but one with considerable experience on it because of his previous work as a staff member for the Honorable Bill Thomas, who chaired the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, in that case I will make my final comments. I assume the gentleman from South Carolina is able to close right after that.

Just hearing this debate reminds me again of all the things that happened. And first of all, I have to clarify that Mr. Eagen did not have to clear up a mess left by Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner may or may not have been the best choice for CAO at the time he took the job, but certainly improved the situation. And I was there. I saw the books as they were, ledger cards made out in pencil with erasures in the ledger book, an erasure of a number filled in with $2,500,000 just to make the books balance. I have seen those books. I know the facts. It was a mess after 40 years of the rule of one party.

Now, I am not defending or criticizing either General Wishart or Scot Faulkner. They were there. They did the best job they could in very difficult circumstances. But they were not there very long.

The point is simply that when we followed a good process, when we used a bipartisan process, we appointed someone who has served for a number of years and has served extremely well.

You know as well as I that if you hire a person, that person's loyalty is going to be to you. It is very important that this position be operated in a bipartisan fashion. And since the Speaker has appointed Mr. Beard, no matter how capable he is, no matter how much he tries, he will be suspected of partisanship in his decisions.

Daniel Beard may, in fact, be the right person to lead the CAO organization, and I truly hope that he is. However, given the selection process, there is simply no way of knowing that with any degree of confidence. This appointment could and should have occurred with the full confidence of all Members of the House. Unfortunately, the burden of proof now lies with Mr. Beard and, ultimately, Speaker Pelosi, to ensure that Mr. Beard is able to maintain the level of skill, professionalism and bipartisanship we have come to expect from the House CAO.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question on the adopting of the resolution.

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

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

But to begin with, I would like to yield a moment to the chairwoman of the committee and ask, just to try to clarify this, what is the effective date of the amendment we are considering?

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the question was an honest inquiry simply because there has been a lot of confusion about the last-minute changes, which is certainly not customary for a bill taken up under suspension.

This bill would deprive Members of Congress from their pensions if they are convicted of certain crimes. Similar language was included in the ethics and lobbying reform bill passed by the Senate last week.

This is not a new issue. This is not the first time the House has considered the question of whether convicted Members should lose their pensions. In 1996, following the conviction of Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, a public outcry followed published reports that he would be receiving a generous pension even while serving his prison term. In response, the House scheduled and voted on H.R. 4011, to take away the pensions of Members convicted of offenses listed in the bill. It passed 390-32 in the House, but was not taken up in the Senate and did not become law; and Mr. Rostenkowski received his full pension.

Incidentally, mail fraud, the crime for which Mr. Rostenkowski was convicted, was a listed offense in that bill, H.R. 4011, but is not listed in the bill pending before us today. So if there were another Rostenkowski event, today this would not affect that behavior.

The recent convictions of some of our former colleagues, and published reports implicating a current Member in bribery schemes, have caused this issue to surface again.

Then, as now, these legislative efforts amount to an attempt to close the barn door after the horse has gone. Even if H.R. 4011 had passed in 1996, it would not have affected anyone engaged in criminal activity prior to its passage. In other words, Mr. Rostenkowski still would not have been affected by that bill. Whatever we do today will not deprive any of our convicted former colleagues of their pensions and won't threaten the pension of a Member who might have already engaged in criminal activity but has yet to be charged or convicted. The Supreme Court has ruled you simply cannot change the criminal penalty for a crime after it has been committed and apply it retroactively. This is called ex post facto punishment and is clearly prohibited by the Constitution, and that is why it is so extremely important to draft this bill properly.

The Congress had originally attempted to do this when it passed the Hiss Act in 1954 in response to the perjury conviction of Alger Hiss. The law applied to a number of offenses. But this law, though passed after his conviction, was written to take away Hiss's pension but was struck down by a Federal court, and later the Congress scaled the law back because it was unmanageable. This illustrates again the importance of careful work on bills of this nature.

Conviction of an offense listed in the Hiss Act, which is still in effect and applies to all government employees, results in total loss of the pension. The Hiss Act, as amended in 1961, is now limited to crimes against the State that threaten national security: treason, espionage, sedition, et cetera.

Of course, had the Congress enacted the House-passed legislation on the subject in 1996, those who have been convicted of listed criminal offenses in the interim would not be able to receive pensions and today's action would not be necessary.

In view of all this, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is most unfortunate that we are considering this bill under suspension with last-minute changes, with limited time for debate, and no opportunity to consider alternatives. I believe that it is important to look at some alternatives. The courts have raised the issue of proportionality, that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. This bill does not contain anything relating to that. And it should, because under this bill a person who commits a heinous crime and has 5 years of pension credit suffers a minor penalty compared to a person who might commit a minor crime but has 20 years of pension to lose. This is not taken care of in this bill, and it should be.

The issue of spouse pensions, as the Chair of the committee mentioned, is dealt with in this bill; but I don't think it is dealt with satisfactorily. I think we should give some guidelines to the Office of Personnel Management in dealing with that.

My point on all this, Mr. Speaker, is that this is an important bill. It is going to potentially affect each and every Member of the Congress. I think it should be done with due deliberation and carefulness, and I think it is most unfortunate that this bill has become clouded by the hasty effort to get this taken up on suspension with last-minute changes not approved previously by the minority.

I hope this is not an example of what we can expect in the future. The issue is certainly more important than naming a post office, which is what we normally do on suspension; and I hope that this bill, when it does pass, will come back in conference so that we will be able to fine tune it in conference with the Senate and produce a good bill that is worthy of final passage.

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

The bill was passed in 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kirk of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to grant 2 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

I would just like to make a brief response to the majority leader before recognizing my next speaker. The issue is not just the quality of the bill. The main issue is the process, and I recall many times over the past few years, when we were in the majority, I asked our leadership to take up a bill on suspension. They said we can't do it unless the minority agrees to it, and I had to wait weeks several times for that.

Now, suddenly, we get a bill tossed out in just a few hours' notice. That is not proper procedure.

Mr. Speaker, I next yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the other speakers that I have to yield their time, and I will just yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly wrap it up.

I appreciate the comments made by the majority leader and minority leader. I hope they cleared the air.

But I just want to add a personal note. I served on a county commission some years ago and became the chair of the county commission, and there I learned the importance of proper order in doing things in regular order. I served as president pro tem of the State senate, and that even reinforced it more strongly. Always proceed properly, fairly and in order.

And I think part of the difficulty we have had here today is that the members of the current minority sat here for 2 weeks grinding their teeth while they watched things come to the floor without having gone to committee, without prior debate and discussion. And this was the crowning insult, to bring something to the floor under suspension, and to make not just one change, we have heard discussion of the date, but two changes in the bill between the time it was agreed to and the time that it reached the floor.

We cannot have that. As a minority we will not tolerate that. We deserve proper order. We deserve respect. And I assume the majority will, from this time henceforth, give us that respect and follow proper order, proper procedure, so we can avoid these donnybrooks in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 475. I will not go into any detailed explanation of it because the Chair of the committee has already given that.

But before I begin my remarks on the legislation before us, I want to express my gratitude to all the dedicated young people who come to serve the House as pages. We are blessed to have such a talented group of young people who are willing to leave home and come here to work for us and for the people of this Nation.

I still recall the first page that I appointed during my first term in the Congress. She was a wonderful young woman, and she served here well. She then went on to college, then to medical school, and is now in residency and has established an outstanding record. Both here in the Congress as a wonderful page and academically, she has done very well. I am certain she will be a wonderful doctor as well. This is typical of the types of people that we have in this Congress as pages.

This legislation is certainly no reflection on any problems that they have created, but rather a reflection on problems that Members have created. We believe that pages who serve here should feel nothing but pride for the important role they play in the daily operations of this House and in the legislation that we present. The legislation before us is meant to improve the way that we as adults conduct our oversight of the page program.

Sadly, the sordid revelations of last fall were not the first time the House had demonstrated a failure to protect the young people who come here to serve in the program.

In July 1982, following allegations of sexual misconduct involving Members of both parties and their involvement with pages, the Democratic Speaker and the Republican leader of the House appointed a Speaker's commission on pages to study the page program, its usefulness, and to determine what changes needed to be made to better protect America's youth during their

service to the House of Representatives.

Many of the commission's recommendations were adopted by the House, including the creation of a leadership-appointed page board responsible for overseeing the page program. That was certainly a step forward, and today's legislation restructures the board that was created then. It has not been the fault of the pages that we had the incident this past year. It is not even the fault of the page board; but, in fact, rather, it was the fault of not engaging the full page board to deal with the problem that made the problem even worse.

This legislation before us will improve the board, make it more effective, and enable it to better carry out its important responsibilities. The pages who work here provide tremendous service to Members, staff, and the operations of the House of Representatives. They gain an invaluable experience, a superb education and improved insight into the workings of their own government.

We owe it to them to ensure that we are doing everything possible and to ensure that they are able to have a positive, healthy, and beneficial experience. We must ensure that we are taking good care of and protecting the young people who have been entrusted to us.

The legislation that is before us will help us meet our important obligations. I believe that adding an additional member and making it truly bipartisan with no party dominating will be a truly positive change.

I believe that adding a former page to the board will be a positive change. In the past at times we have had Members serving on the board who were serving as pages. They performed that function. But by specifically naming a former page to the board, we can ensure that their input is heard.

Furthermore, having a parent of a former page or, perhaps, even a current page serve on the board will be an asset to us as we consider the operation of the page program, their education and all the regulations pertaining to them.

I hope this legislation will help us meet our important obligation in this regard, and I ask all the Members of Congress to support this excellent piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize a current member of the page board, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just make a few closing comments.

Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted with this piece of legislation. I congratulate Mr. Kildee, my esteemed colleague from the State of Michigan, and also Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito, who spoke earlier. It is a good piece of legislation. It is, unfortunately, needed. But it should have been in place before. It might have helped to prevent some of the events we had this past year.

So I strongly support this legislation. I urge all of our colleagues to vote for it. May we all have a better Page Board and a better Page Program and continue one of the most outstanding programs that a young person in this Nation can participate in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 62, a resolution congratulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers for winning the 2006 NCAA Division II Football National Championship.

Head Coach Chuck Martin and his team have helped to bring national reknown to GVSU's campuses in Allendale, Grand Rapids and throughout West Michigan with their excellence on the field. Over the past five years, the Lakers have won four National Championships in their division, a feat that has been duplicated at no other level of college football in the same time span.

The senior class of this team compiled a four-year record of 52-4, making them the winningest senior class of football players in NCAA history. Led by quarterback Cullin Finnerty, Eric Fowler and Mike McFadden--each of them named first-team Little All-America players by the Associated Press--the Lakers dominated their competition to an undefeated 15-0 season, culminating in a 17-14 championship victory over the Northwest Missouri State University Bearcats on December 16, 2006, in Florence, Alabama.

The game was witnessed by 7,000 fans in the stadium and by a worldwide audience including our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere, who watched the game on the Armed Forces TV Network. One GVSU official, my former press secretary, Chris Barbee, reported hearing from two soldiers in Iraq congratulating the team on its victory.

The Laker football team is emblematic of Grand Valley State University as a whole--a thriving, bustling university in West Michigan with more than 23,000 students and nearly 2,000 faculty and staff. The university, led by its new president Thomas J. Haas, is striving for excellence at all levels academic and athletic alike.

Congratulations again to Grand Valley State University, Coach Martin and his staff, and all the players, support staff and fans who made this championship a reality.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my longtime executive assistant and scheduler, Loraine Kehl, who is retiring on February 6 after 22 years of service to this House of Representatives and the citizens of the Third Congressional District of Michigan, which I represent.

Loraine was an original staff member dating back to when I took office on Dec. 7, 1993. Prior to working for me, she served in her same capacities for my predecessor, the late Paul Henry, throughout most of his tenure in the House, dating back to 1985. Prior to working for Congressman Henry, she also worked briefly for the House Budget Committee. In her time with me, she has been my indispensable, right- hand person. She keeps me on schedule, makes sure all the bills are paid and the trains run on time. Though it should go without saying, she will be greatly and deeply missed.

Given her 22 years of service to our district, it is no surprise that she is well known and beloved among the people of Grand Rapids and West Michigan and the many other people who have done business with our office. She has been a fixture in our front office, greeting old friends and newcomers alike, offering assistance in getting White House tours and providing advice for visitors to Washington. She is deeply appreciated by my constituents for her helpful assistance, her impeccable memory for names and faces and her consistent concern for the needs of those who call or visit. In a very real way, she has been the public face for our Washington office for more than the past two decades.

Madam Speaker, I hope that you and the rest of our colleagues will join me in wishing Loraine Kehl a very happy and fulfilling retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for All Kids (SPEAK) Act, H.R. 325.

It has been no secret that I strongly believe that we need to improve our nation's math and science education. High quality math and science education at the K-12 levels is extremely important to ensure that our future workforce is ready to compete in the global economy. We are sacrificing our future and our children's, if we are not investing in today's children.

I have been so concerned about the quality of math and science education in this country, and the limited number of young people who are pursuing math and science-related degrees, that I founded the House STEM Education Caucus with my Democratic colleague Mark Udall of Colorado in 2004. As you probably know, STEM stands for ``Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.''

A resounding bipartisan chorus of business leaders, educators, Nobel laureates and other luminaries has called for improvements in our nation's math and science education, as evidenced by the Business Roundtable's Tapping America's Potential and the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm reports, as well as President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative.

While the last Congress was unable to pass comprehensive legislation to improve math and science education, we now have a new opportunity to work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion: the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is up for reauthorization this year.

NCLB has made important strides toward strengthening standards-based education and holding states and schools accountable for ensuring that our students are learning. However, with more than 50 different sets of academic standards, state assessments and definitions of proficiency, there is tremendous variability across our nation in the subject matter our students are learning.

I might add that there also is considerable variation across states and even school districts in the sequencing of math and science courses, which is problematic for our increasingly mobile student population. Our students could lack instruction in certain basic science or math concepts if they transfer between schools with completely different sequences of courses.

Despite NCLB and all of our other efforts, the condition of our state standards is not well. In 2006, the Fordham Foundation reported that two-thirds of U.S. kids attend school in states with academic standards in the C, D, and F range. My own state of Michigan was given a C in math and a D in science despite the fact that Michigan was one of the pioneers in the standards movement. (Michigan adopted science guidelines in 1991). Recently, Michigan adopted the Michigan Merit Curriculum, which describes what students should know at each grade level, and is linked to tougher statewide graduation requirements that, for the first time, mandate 3 years of high school science.

States like Michigan are making substantial improvements, but our Nation as a whole needs to redouble its efforts to ensure that we have all students prepared for the jobs of the future, and must improve the quality of our educational standards from the current average or failing grades to excellent or A plus grades.

The SPEAK Act creates, adopts and recommends rigorous voluntary American education content standards in math and science in grades K- 12. The bill tasks the National Assessment Governing Board, in consultation with relevant organizations, to review existing standards and to review the issue of course sequencing as it relates to student achievement.

The SPEAK Act authorizes the American Standards Incentive Fund to incentivize states to adopt excellent math and science standards. It offers an ``If You Build It, They Will Come Approach.'' Let me emphasize that this bill does not establish a national curriculum or national standards. Participation by states is strictly voluntary. I have always felt that the ``carrot'' is more effective than the ``stick'' in leading reform. It is my hope that all states will feel the overwhelming responsibility to bolster their state standards in science and math and will step up to the plate.

I am very pleased that 38 organizations listed below have endorsed the SPEAK Act, including national organizations such as the National Education Association, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the National Science Teachers Association. In addition, organizations in my congressional district and elsewhere in Michigan have endorsed the SPEAK Act, including the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce; the University of Michigan; Michigan State University; the Regional Math and Science Center at Grand Valley State University; Steelcase, Inc; RoMan Manufacturing, Inc.; Cascade Engineering; and the Michigan Science Teachers Association.

I look forward to working with Senator Dodd, other Members and the education and business community in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to pass the SPEAK Act into law. It will greatly improve our Nation's math and science education. New America Foundation, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Education Association, Alliance for Excellent Education, Council of the Great City Schools, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, International Reading Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Chemical Society, Healthcare Leadership Council, SAE International, Math for America, Education Industry Association, National Education Knowledge Industry Association (NEKIA), Eli Broad, Philanthropist/Businessman, The Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University, Chicago Science Group, Jacob Ludes, III, Executive Director/CEO, New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), National Center for Technological Literacy, Project Lead the Way, Museum of Science, Boston, Junior Engineering Technical Society (JETS), National Society of Black Engineers, International Technology Education Association, ASME Center for Public Awareness, Building Engineering and Science Talent, San Diego, CA.

Connecticut-Based Organizations: The University of Connecticut, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges, Connecticut Federation of School Administrators, Connecticut Principals' Center, Connecticut Association of Schools.

Michigan-Based Organizations: Grand Rapids, MI, Area Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Science Teachers Association, Michigan State University, Cascade Engineering, MI, RoMan Manufacturing, Inc., MI, Regional Math and Science Center, Grand Valley State University, MI Steelcase, Inc.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Independent Study of Distance Education Act of 2007. This bill requires that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conduct a scientifically correct, statistically valid study of the quality of distance education programs as compared to campus-based programs.

Allow me to provide some background on congressional actions related to distance education. During the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress passed a rule to counter fraud and abuse perpetuated by diploma mills and some correspondence programs in the 1980s. This rule, known as the ``50-percent rule'', prevents any college or university that enrolls more than 50 percent of its students in distance education or provides more than half of its courses via distance education from participating in federal financial aid programs.

During the 1998 reauthorization, Congress recognized that, with changes in technology, schools are increasingly offering courses via distance education. The Distance Education Demonstration Program was established to examine the quality and viability of expanding distance education programs. This demo program allowed 24 colleges and universities to waive several program requirements for participating in the federal financial aid programs, including the 50-percent rule, in exchange for participating in studies by the Secretary of Education.

The Secretary provided Congress with three studies of the Distance Education Demonstration Program. The Secretary found that the ``mode of distance education delivery does not appear to be a salient factor in student outcomes.'' However, in 2004, the Office of the Inspector General found that the Secretary's conclusions about the impact of distance education methods on student learning was unsupported, fostering uncertainty about the quality of distance education programs as compared to the quality of campus-based programs.

As a scientist, I strive to base my policy decisions and voting on reliable studies and data. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Higher Education Act and distance education, there is no scientifically correct, statistically valid study of the quality of distance education programs as compared to campus-based programs.

You may think that this has halted congressional action related to distance education programs. Certainly, it would be prudent to know whether distance education is effective before allowing for the rapid proliferation of federal financial aid funds going to students in such programs.

However, in 2005, as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, Congress repealed the ``50-percent rule'', which could potentially result in rapid expansion of distance education programs. While the House-version of this bill included an amendment I offered to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct a study, this provision was stripped out during conference because of the arcane ``Byrd rule,'' which prohibits provisions without a fiscal impact in budget reconciliation bills.

Please know that I am not against distance education. In fact, as a K-12 student, I completed correspondence courses by distance. But, before we spend more federal dollars on this, we need to know more about the quality of distance education programs, as compared to campus-based programs. Simply put, the Independent Study of Distance Education Act will provide scientifically correct, statistically valid information on which to base future votes and policy decisions related to distance education programs.

I urge all Members to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the last 2 weeks have been a time of sorrow for me, and a time of pride also. I was awakened at 2:00 in the morning to learn that my good friend, President Ford, had passed away. And the succeeding whirlwind of funerals, receptions, and events dealing with his death have reminded us all how much he gave our country and how much he did for our country.

I am proud to call Mr. Ford a friend. I am proud of what he did for our country. I am proud that he so ably reflected the values and virtues of west Michigan, my part of the country.

We pray that You will bless Betty and his family and give them comfort and give them strength.

I will shortly be presenting a resolution honoring President Ford, and I hope that Members will find their way to the floor to speak on this special resolution, or speak later this evening. I encourage them to join me in honoring this great American and wonderful President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 15, a resolution I introduced along with Speaker Pelosi, Republican Leader Boehner, Majority Leader Hoyer and the entire Michigan congressional delegation. This resolution honors our great President, Gerald R. Ford, who was also an outstanding Member of Congress.

I am privileged to serve in the same House seat that President Ford held. I am still deeply honored when people, both here and in Grand Rapids, Michigan, refer to my district as ``Jerry Ford's district.'' After all these years, they still consider it to be Jerry's.

He personified the many good traits that West Michigan has to offer our Nation; honesty, integrity and a sense of courage and duty. I think you are going to hear these words a great deal as we honor President Ford in this chamber, where he honorably served for 25 years.

I was deeply touched by the funeral services and memorial celebrations held for President Ford over the past 2 weeks since his death on Tuesday, December 26, 2006. I want to thank all those who helped plan and carry out those memorable events, which solemnly reflected on this great man and his service and leadership to our Nation. I am pleased that this House can now take time at the beginning of a new Congress to celebrate and remember one of our own Members and the great things that he did for our country.

For many younger Americans, these past tributes have served as a history lesson about the so-called ``accidental President.'' They have learned, and those of us who knew him, have remembered his athletic prowess at the University of Michigan; his brave service in the Navy during World War II; his outstanding representation of Grand Rapids and Western Michigan in the Congress; his ascension to the Republican Leader's position in 1965; his appointment and confirmation as Vice President in 1973; and, of course, his rise to the Presidency in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation in August 1974.

What has struck me during the memorial services and tributes is the shift in the way President Ford is regarded as compared to some of the opinions during his Presidency. For example, at the time of his appointment as Vice President, the Wall Street Journal editors wrote that the nomination ``caters to all the worst instincts on Capitol Hill, clubbiness, partisanship and the small-mindedness that thinks in terms of those who should be rewarded rather than those who could best fill the job.''

Little did the Wall Street Journal know that the Congress had in fact picked the person who could best fill the job; they later changed their thoughts and their writings about President Ford.

I think a lot of people probably thought at the time as the Wall Street Journal did. He was a political insider, from a relatively small city in Michigan, who many knew little about. But those of us in Grand Rapids, his constituents and his colleagues, knew who he was, a decent, thoughtful, trustworthy man, full of integrity and courage.

As it turns out, the country should be eternally grateful for the blessing of the timely leadership, strength and wisdom of Jerry Ford during this perilously difficult time in the constitutional history of our nation. I am glad that 30 years of history have shown that the Members of Congress, and those who advised President Nixon on his appointment, knew what they were talking about and what they were doing.

President Ford's appointment and his ascendency to the office of President was not the result of ``clubbiness'' or ``political favor.'' He was the person best suited to fill the job, and he literally healed our Nation by the actions that he took during those troubled times.

I am pleased that the opinion writers at the Wall Street Journal recognized this when editorializing after his death. They eloquently wrote that President Ford navigated many perils in his short tenure, including the public furor over Watergate, the unpopularity of the Vietnam War, dramatic inflation and a struggling economy, and, as they put it, ``better than he gets credit for.''

I think that over time history will continue to hold President Ford in even higher regard for the actions he took to bring honor and respect back to the Presidency, to stabilize the

economy, and to lay the groundwork for freedom and democracy to spread and for Soviet communism to fall.

My thoughts and prayers continue to go out to Betty and to their children, Michael, Jack, Steven and Susan, as well as their grandchildren. The Ford family demonstrated remarkable composure and strength during these long weeks of mourning, and we thank them for helping to lead us in our grief.

At the beginning of this new year and this new Congress, I am hopeful that we in this House will be mindful of the life and legacy of Jerry Ford. He served in this House with distinction, he treated everyone with respect, and he always conducted himself with honesty, integrity and forthrightness in every matter he undertook. I pray that we will do the same.

His family creed, incidentally, although humorous, is one we should all emulate: ``Work hard, tell the truth, and come to dinner on time.''

Mr. Speaker, I know all my colleagues will support this resolution to honor our 38th President.

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

It is a great pleasure once again to recognize the many accomplishments that President Ford had during his life, and I am pleased that we can spend more time this evening adding to the record we began early this afternoon.

Before I do that, I want to remind all Members to please take the time to go to the Cloakrooms and record their remembrances in the books that are displayed there. This will be very meaningful to Mrs. Ford and the family if we can do that, and I urge all Members to do that.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed any further, I would like to yield to Mr. McCotter from Michigan for such time as he may consume.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give a few vignettes of Jerry Ford that illustrate the type of man that he was.

We heard this afternoon when we discussed this on the floor that he had been active in supporting the Civil Rights Act that passed this House and the Senate some years ago. But this was not an out-of-the- ordinary thing for him. When he was a football player at the University of Michigan, and a very fine one, I might add, undoubtedly the finest athlete to ever occupy the White House, he was the captain of the football team. They were scheduled to play Georgia Tech. There was one African American football player on the Michigan football team, and Georgia Tech said we cannot allow a black player to play on the field at Georgia Tech.

When Gerald Ford heard that, he said I will not play either. I am simply not going to play if they will not let my friend, Ward, play. That was the type of person he was. It was not until his African American friend begged him to play that he finally conceded that he would play.

Another vignette is when he was elevated to the Presidency, we had a big party for him back in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and 5,000 people turned out for our little party. Person after person got up to the microphone and related experiences in their life where Jerry Ford had helped them, whether it was a matter of housing, of veterans benefits, getting medals for veterans. The list went on and on and on.

That accords with another thing that was told me by one of my fellow legislators at the time. He had become a Member of Congress and he said, Sometimes I cursed Jerry Ford. Because of the high standard of constituent service he provided, he said, we worked endlessly in our office to do as well as Jerry Ford and his staff did in his office.

Those are two examples. I have more, but I see that the majority leader has arrived, and I know he is anxious to speak on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few more comments, little vignettes. We have had a lot of discussion today about the wonderful attributes of President Ford as a President, as a Vice President and as a Member of the House of Representatives. Indeed, he was a most gracious person and also a most capable and hardworking person. I appreciate the comments that Majority Leader Hoyer made which reflect very accurately what a wonderful person Mr. Ford was. But I want to add just a few examples from my hometown and my experience with him.

I, at one time, was the Chairman of the County Commission. This was at the time when we were erecting the Ford Museum in Grand Rapids. Of course, he was interested in that and came around regularly. He was retired from the Presidency at that time.

I recall walking down the street with Mr. Ford. I thought I knew quite a few people there, but walking down the street with him, even though he had not served in Congress for some 10 years at that time, people, of course, would greet him and say, ``Hi, Jerry, how are you doing?'' They all knew him. The amazing part to me was that he knew them, and he would say, ``Hi, Bob. Hi, Shirley. Hi, Jerry. How are you doing?''

Then another time we walked into the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel, which had been the Pantlind Hotel, and he had stayed there when he came back to Grand Rapids for visits and for meetings. We walked into the hotel lobby, and, of course, a number of people saw him and sort of mobbed him and kept talking to him.

I noticed a bellman standing off to the side, and it was clear to me that he wanted to speak to Mr. Ford but didn't dare to come up to this group of people. He just thought it wasn't proper. So I mentioned this to President Ford. I said, ``I think the bellman wants to talk to you.'' He said, ``Oh, good.'' So he marches over to him and says, ``Harry, how are you doing? It is good to see you again.'' I didn't know he had a personal relationship with him.

Then he said, ``By the way, I heard that your mother has cancer. Is that true? How is she doing?'' He then had a 10-minute conversation with this young man about his mother and her health and what had gone on. I am curious how many ex-Presidents would take the time to do that for a bellman that they had known in the past?

Similarly, the first time he went to the White House as President and a reporter I know was following him, and as he approached the White House, of course, the Marines stood erect, opened the doors and stood at attention. He came up and held out his hand and said, ``Hi, I am Jerry Ford. I am going to be living here. What is your name?'' The reporter talked to the Marines at the door after that and said, ``Have you ever had that before?'' One said, ``No, I have been here for several years, and the previous President has never even looked at me.'' But, again, that was characteristic of Mr. Ford.

One final little note. I first got acquainted with him, I am a nuclear scientist, as most of you know. I had moved from Berkley, California, where I got my Ph.D., and I was teaching at

Calvin College. I heard a speech at a national convention from a Congressman who said, ``It is terrible. We don't have any scientists in the Congress. We don't have any scientific advice.'' He said, ``I urge you to contact your Member of Congress to see if you can help them by giving scientific advice.''

So I took the gentleman at his word. I sent a letter to Congressman Ford and said, ``I am a scientist. I have heard there is not much scientific advice there. I would be happy to help you in any way I can.''

I dropped the letter in the mailbox, and my first thought was, I would get a nice response that said: Thank you for your comments. We will keep you in mind if we ever need you. But in fact, Mr. Ford was excited about it. The day they got the letter, his chief of staff called me and said, ``Jerry is very excited with this and would like to meet with you.''

So I met with him. I established a science advisory committee, and we met with him quarterly to advise him on scientific matters. What struck me was he was extremely interested in the meetings and in what we were saying, but also very, very quick on catching on to the scientific terms and issues we were discussing, much more so than the average lay person would be able to catch on. So it was a real pleasure for us.

But one day after a meeting, I said, ``Mr. Ford, I don't quite understand, because you come back to Grand Rapids, you spend all day in meetings, you spend an hour or hour and a half in a meeting with us just because we want you to know more about science,'' and I said, ``You really seem to enjoy it. Doesn't it get tiresome sometimes?''

He put his arm around my shoulder and he said, ``Vern, one thing you have to recognize: Everyone else I meet with is asking for something. You are the only group I meet with that is offering me something.''

I have never forgotten that, and it really gave a lot of meaning to me when I got here in Congress and found out that is true. Almost everyone that walks through our office doors comes in asking for something, not trying to help. So I now appreciate more fully why he appreciated our help.

These are just a few instances of what a wonderful human being President Ford was, how he related to the people around him, how he was concerned about the people around him and really sought to do what was best for them and what was best for this country. He was a terrific model for the rest of us and for me myself, and I have always tried to serve the people as well as he has.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I have no further comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a package of four bills aimed at improving our nation's math and science education at the pre-school through university levels.

Too often, our young students lack the academic background necessary to learn math and science skills in elementary school. The Math and Science School Readiness Act (H.R. ) promotes pre-mathematics and pre-science school readiness in preschool-aged children enrolled in the federal Head Start program. The bill updates the current law provision that requires that Head Start programs develop preschoolers' ``numeracy skills'' by requiring that such programs instead ensure that children develop and demonstrate basic pre-math and pre-science skills, such as counting, grouping similar objects together, and deciphering whether items have been added or subtracted. I included a similar provision in the major Head Start reauthorization bills that passed the House in 2003 and 2005, but unfortunately these bills did not become law.

Now more than ever, our nation's future economic competitiveness and national security will depend upon a workforce equipped with necessary math and science skills. Our students lag behind their international peers on several key indicators, and our states and schools are not held accountable for K-12 science education. The Science Accountability Act (H.R. ) holds states and schools accountable for ensuring that our K-12 students are learning science. It amends the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to require that the science assessments, which begin in the 2007-2008 school year, be included in the state's accountability system beginning in the 2008-2009 school year. It also gradually phases in annual assessments in science in grades 3-8, matching the existing requirements for reading and math assessments.

This package of math and science bills also provides resources for improving math and science education. A tandem of bills provides incentives for teachers and businesses to enhance math and science education.

A key component of high-quality math and science education is a qualified teaching workforce. The National Science Education Tax Incentive for Teachers Act (H.R. ) helps bring qualified math and science teachers to our K-12 schools and helps retain them. Eligible teachers may receive a tax credit of up to $1,500 per year.

A former science educator, I understand that students should learn math and science primarily by doing math and science. Schools lack the necessary equipment and some teachers lack training in how to use the equipment. The National Science Education Tax Incentive for Businesses Act (H.R. ) encourages businesses to donate new and needed math and science-related equipment to schools or donate teacher training services. Businesses may receive a tax credit equal to 100 percent of the value of their donations.

I am hopeful that the House and Senate can quickly act on this legislative package and that President Bush will sign the bills so that our nation's math and science education may be improved on all levels.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1104) providing for a severance payment for employees of leadership offices and committees of the House of Representatives who are separated from employment solely and directly as a result of a change in the party holding the majority of the membership of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been submitted at the request and suggestion of the current minority leader and soon-to-be majority leader, and because of that situation I reserve the balance of my time and yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) to allow her, the ranking member and the cosponsor of the bill, to speak on the resolution.

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

As colleagues, we often disagree on many issues with our friends on the other side of the aisle; but we can all agree that we are blessed by a tireless, dedicated workforce in this Congress. And whenever there is a transfer of power of this sort, there is a tremendous dislocation amongst our staff.

I think it is entirely reasonable to do as we did to a certain extent in 1994, as the Senate did in 2004, when there is a dramatic change of leadership, to provide a period of time for the staff to adjust to that changing situation. So I believe this is an appropriate measure, and I encourage the House to act favorably for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and ask unanimous consent that she may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker-designate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona said no one was being berated, but frankly I feel berated. This is not the middle of the night. We all know that. I never thought my fellow Republicans would accuse me of doing something in the middle of the night. I would have rather done it in the light of day but this just happened to be when it came up in the schedule.

This action, what we are doing here, does not preclude later action to take care of those problem cases in personal offices. That is beside the point. The point right now is we have a large number of committee staff who are learning fairly late in the game who it is that is being laid off; namely, those particular persons. They do not have the opportunity to suddenly rush out and find a job immediately.

Some committee chairmen have talked to me and are very concerned because they don't know whether they should use their leftover year-end funds for this purpose. Some of them have money left. Others do not. There is a huge inequity. This is an attempt to provide an equitable severance package. A severance package is not unusual in today's world. Ford Motor Company just bought out huge numbers of employees who they just wanted to get off the payroll. It is a very common practice. We are doing the proper thing to assure that everyone is treated equally in the committee staffs that are losing their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in the little time I have remaining, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California for a closing statement.