Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this excellent bill and to thank my good friend and colleague, Chairman Frank Wolf, for his tireless leadership in funding for basic scientific research in the fiscal year 2007 budget.

In a tough budget environment, Chairman Wolf has fought hard to ensure that the President's American Competitiveness Initiative is fully funded. I appreciate the chairman's hard work on an issue that is so important to the Nation.

I spent my career in Congress championing the need for investment in basic research to help keep our Nation on the leading edge of science and innovation. We have gained so much benefit from basic research, ranging from MRIs, through laser technology, human genome mapping, fiberoptics, and GPS systems. The President has recognized the necessity of this investment through his American Competitiveness Initiative, which includes much needed funding for the National Science Foundation.

I very much appreciate that Chairman Wolf has recognized this need and has done as much as he could within the constraints of the budget to provide this funding.

Also I should mention NIST and the great work they do, as well as NOAA and the National Weather Service. In these difficult budgetary times, the chairman has done a marvelous job, and I am very pleased by the funding levels for these entities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and again thank Chairman Wolf for his leadership on important science research and education issues.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to commend Chairman McKeon of the Energy and Workforce Committee and Congressman Tiberi, who chairs the relevant subcommittee of that committee.

Today, we are going to discuss on suspension a bill that they have created, the Senior Independence Act, which is the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. They have done excellent work, and I also want to thank Congressman Danny Davis, who has worked with me and I have worked with him to make certain that we also address mental health issues in this bill.

Last winter, I had the pleasure of meeting Suzann Ogland-Hand, who is one of my constituents, and whom I nominated for the White House Conference on Aging. She is a mental health expert, and she helps large numbers of elderly people deal with their mental health problems.

Clearly, this is an issue whose time has come, and I am very pleased that the bill we will be taking up today under suspension includes provisions that will take care of the mental health needs of so many Americans, large and small, and deal with all the different issues that the elderly face.

I commend, again, Mr. McKeon for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senior Independence Act. I commend Congressman Tiberi and Chairman McKeon for their work on this bill. I especially thank Chairman McKeon, Congressman Danny Davis, and their staff members Kate Houston and Jill Hunter-Williams for their work on adding mental health provisions to the bill.

Last winter I had the pleasure of meeting with Suzanne Ogland-Hand, the director of the Center For Senior Care at Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services, a very large faith-based psychiatric hospital located in my district. Ms. Ogland-Hand had served as my delegate to the White House Conference on Aging, and provided valuable input to both the conference and to me regarding the need for a focus on seniors' mental health at the Administration on Aging.

Throughout my life and career, I have met many people, including seniors, who are affected by mental health problems. Certainly the stigma related to mental health issues for seniors is significant. I know this personally because my mother suffered from mental health problems and was very ashamed of it.

I have observed the devastating impact untreated mental health conditions have on individuals and their family members' lives. This bill makes positive steps towards encouraging awareness and coordination of mental health service for seniors. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote in favor of it.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.

I didn't want to interrupt your beautiful soliloquy, it was fascinating, but I came to the floor because I heard those who were speaking before you, and I

couldn't believe what I was hearing. They were members of the other party describing in great detail how horrible Republicans are.

Now, I don't know who they were talking about. They weren't talking about you. They weren't talking about me. They are not talking about any of my other Republican colleagues here. But you would literally think the world was ending.

I have to tell you, Mr. King, how refreshing it is to come to the floor and hear you give this beautiful speech without condemning the other party, but simply outlining where you are coming from in a very careful, thoughtful way. I really, truly appreciate your expression of your beliefs about where the country should go and what is happening, without throwing rocks or mud or condemning anyone else, but simply outlining very beautifully what you believe.

Now, if I may, I would just like to add a few comments. You live in northwest Iowa. I was born in southwest Minnesota, just a few miles from there. I think we have come from the same framework. Maybe that is another reason why I appreciate so much what you have been saying.

You said when you were born, your glass was half full. Mine actually was about one-eighth full, simply because I grew up in a family with considerable poverty, poverty of money, but great richness of persons, of my parents and my siblings, great richness of faith. Frankly, that has always meant more to me than money. I am not a rich man. I never had very high incomes. The highest income I ever received is from the Congress of the United States.

My point is that there is more than money to this life. That is what you were illustrating as well. My cup was one-eighth full, also, because I had serious illness, and I wasn't ever able to go to school. I was home-schooled before there was such a thing as home schooling. Through the love of my family, the encouragement of my family and friends, I survived that situation, and I did well in college, I did well in graduate school, and I ended up getting a Ph.D. in nuclear physics and teaching physics until I ended up in the political arena.

So even though the glass was one-eighth full, it is overflowing and has been overflowing most of my life because of these circumstances.

If I may add one final thought in response to the comments you made about the dot.com bubble. There is no question about it. That dot.com bubble really was a tremendous economic boom to this country. If you look back over the past 50 years, most of the economic growth has come from our investment in science and in scientific research. The dot.com bubble is a good example of that. Development of the Internet. It is amusing because I was using the Internet before the rest of the world knew it existed. It was a wonderful thing. But we were using it as scientists to transmit voluminous amounts of data back and forth around the world. And then someone gets the bright idea, hey, I bet the public would like to use this, too, and that was the start of the dot.com boom.

As a scientist, I believe it is absolutely essential for our Nation to continue supporting research, the basic research. In the old days of monopolies, AT&T had Bell Labs. They could do the research. IBM had their labs. They did research. In today's globally competitive world, that is not possible. The government has to do the basic research, and from that industry develops the products that become very, very useful to us.

And so I appreciate the point you made about that. I just want to emphasize, let's support the research that will continue having this country be the leader throughout the world in developing these products. I often find people saying, what do you need that research for? I remember when I was a graduate student, one of my colleagues at Berkeley developed nuclear magnetic resonance. It was a wonderful thing to investigate matter with. That is what he was doing. But, lo and behold, that is the basis of the MRI machine which has been the most powerful diagnostic tool that medicine has ever seen. Similarly with the CAT scan, developed out of some work we were doing at Berkeley. X- rays, discovered by a physicist. All basic research with very direct, practical implications for the world today.

I know this is a sidetrack from the point you were making, but this is what makes America great: the creative ability that we have. We worry about losing jobs to other countries, but our creative instinct is what is going to help us win that battle. We don't have the low wages they do. I am glad we don't. But the point is because of our creative juices in this country, we come up with these great ideas. The greatest country that this planet has ever seen, the greatest ideas of freedom for everyone, and the creative ability to meet the challenges and meet the needs of the people of this world today.

I thank you for yielding some time. I just wanted to add those few thoughts to your beautiful comments. Thank you very much.

If I may, if the gentleman will yield.

I would just like to add a little comment to that because I speak to a lot of high school students. Of course, as you know, they look down on nerds. And so I start out by asking them, What type of person is the richest man in the world? That comes out. I say, He's a nerd. I say, And I'm a nerd.

Isn't there a message here? Nerds can succeed in this world. And then I tell these high school kids, look, it is very important to think about the courses that you are taking in high school, because that is going to determine your life. And then the coup de grace, and, of course, I am partial to this. I used to always tell them, If you aren't a nerd, you're going to end up working for a nerd. So I tell them to get busy, study their math and their science, and they will be successful in this life, too, in many ways.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 290 I was involved in a meeting and did not return to the floor in time for the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on this day of debate while we discuss the merits and perils of our involvement in the war on terror, there is one sentiment that is shared by every Member of Congress: our admiration for our Armed Forces who risk their lives each day in defense of our freedom. Within these Halls of democracy where we passionately represent our constituents, it is important to recommend that the democratic way of life that is at the heart of what we do would not be possible without the men and women of our Armed Forces.

The brave men and women of our military are often called upon to travel great distances away from their families and loved ones to fight for the freedom that all Americans hold dear. Each time one of them enters into battle, it is with the knowledge that they may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, giving their lives to secure our great Nation.

In recognition of these heroes, we have placed a memorial display in the Rayburn horseshoe foyer featuring the name of each and every member of our forces who has fallen as a result of the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is my hope that the many Members, staff, visitors, students, and constituent groups who visit the House office buildings each day will take a moment to stop by the memorial and reflect on the gift of freedom given selflessly by these honored individuals to every American.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment positively on H. Con. Res. 421, but also to express some concerns about it. I commend Representative Tom Price for his interest in supporting Greater Opportunities for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math-- collectively, STEM--programs and I thank him for including a change in the manager's amendment. STEM education is extremely important to our Nation, because our economic and national security rely on technical and innovative expertise in these fields. However, I am concerned that this resolution, despite the change in the manager's amendment, still gives premature support to the Academic Competitiveness Council's-- ACC--recommendations, which are not due until February 2007.

The impetus for the ACC sprang from a 2005 Government Accountability Office study on Federal STEM programs. It is my understanding that Federal agencies with STEM programs have a seat at the ACC table. However, I am concerned that not all agencies have an equal appreciation or understanding of the importance of STEM education in improving our national competitiveness and security.

The National Science Foundation--NSF--has a proven track record of expertise and experience in STEM programs. We all know that NSF grants have led to truly revolutionary discoveries and technical advances. NSF-funded researchers have won more than 160 Nobel Prizes, and these pioneers have included the scientists or teams that discovered many of the fundamental particles of matter and decoded the genetics of viruses. But many do not know that another essential element in NSF's mission is support for science and engineering education, from pre-K through graduate school and beyond. The research that the NSF funds is thoroughly integrated with education to help ensure that there will always be plenty of skilled people available to work in new and emerging scientific, engineering and technological fields, and plenty of capable teachers to educate the next generation. Since the NSF has been a leader in STEM education for more than 50 years and has established excellent evaluations for all of its programs, the ACC should give very strong recognition to the role NSF and its education programs play in promoting our economic competitiveness and national security, and they should build upon the strengths of the NSF. The treasure trove of knowledge the foundation represents should not be overlooked, but, in fact, should be used as a base for the ACC recommendations.

Specifically, I am concerned that the GO-STEM resolution calls for ``minimal duplication among [STEM] programs'' without defining what this means and also goes further than the established goals for the ACC that are set out in the Deficit Reduction Act. For years, I have been promoting the Math and Science Partnership programs at the Department of Education--ED--and the National Science

Foundation. Unfortunately, because both agency's programs have the same name, some have mistakenly thought of these programs as equivalent, even though they are in name only, and duplicative, even though they most definitely are not. I am working on legislation to change the name of the NSF program to help avoid future confusion. Among other differences, the NSF program is designed to provide rigorous, scientifically based research on what works in STEM teacher professional development whereas ED's program is designed to implement these ideas on the State level. A wide array of teachers, scientists and education researchers agree that there is much research needed in the areas addressed by the NSF Math and Science Partnership program, yet the President's budget has called for eliminating new research in the NSF program.

Since there has been significant confusion about different STEM programs, I am pleased that the ACC will focus on coordination and strengthening the Federal STEM endeavor. There is a plethora of STEM education programs across many different Federal agencies. The goal of the GO-STEM resolution--to better coordinate Federal STEM education efforts--is needed and is very admirable. However, I do not want to put the cart before the horse, and prefer that Congress carefully consider whatever recommendations the ACC puts forth before adopting them.

Additionally, the GO-STEM resolution calls for ``consistent standards of evaluation.'' While this is a laudable goal, apples cannot be compared to oranges. In particular, I am concerned that new programs could receive failing grades since they have not had time to demonstrate results. Will the new SMART grants, a tremendous tool for bolstering the STEM education pipeline, receive a ``results not demonstrated'' designation as other new programs do in PART reviews? Furthermore, we should expect very different outcomes from programs that focus on student learning compared to programs that focus on graduate-level research in the physical sciences. The tools used to define ``effective'' are extremely critical. I am uncertain what evaluative methodology the ACC will adopt to define ``effective,'' and, therefore, am very reluctant to give premature support to the ACC's recommendations.

I urge that Members pay very close attention to the ACC's recommendations. But please, think critically about the evaluative methodology the ACC uses in developing its recommendations, and recognize and build upon the existing expertise of agencies such as the National Science Foundation. Also, think very hard about how our actions will affect our economic competitiveness and national security before considering eliminating any StEM-related programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the members of the 2006 United States Physics Olympiad Team. These 24 individuals have shown tremendous aptitude in physics and leadership amongst their peers.

It is very challenging to earn a spot on this prestigious team. After being nominated by their high school teachers and taking a preliminary exam, 200 students qualified to take the second and final screening exam for the U.S. Physics Team. The 24 survivors of that group represent the top physics students in the U.S., and they are now at a nine-day training camp of intense study, examination and problem solving. Five of these exceptional students will advance and represent the United States in a tremendous international competition in July at the International Physics Olympiad in Singapore.

Members of the 2006 team include: Sophie Cai, ZeNan Chang, David Chen, Otis Chodosh, Kenan Diab, Jiashuo Feng, Yingyu Gao, Sherry Gong, Timothy Hsieh, Rui Hu, Ariella Kirsch, Jason LaRue, Men Young Lee, David Lo, Benjamin Michel, Hetul Patel, Veronica Pillar, Nimish Ramanlal, Ingmar Saberi, William Throwe, Arnav Tripathy, Henry Tung, Philip Tynan and Haofei Wei.

Mr. Speaker, as a nuclear physicist and former physics professor, I have worked to promote math and science education and to recognize the pivotal role these fields play in our nation's economic competitiveness and national security. Educating our K-12 students in math and science is very important. It is encouraging to see so many young, outstanding physics students enthusiastic about science, and I note that many of them chose to pursue science as a result of a teacher or family member who encouraged them along the way. Making sure our teachers are well- equipped to teach science and math is very important in fostering the interest of future generations in these subjects.

I hope the composite enthusiasm of these students and the other semifinalists will allow them to consider future careers in science, technology, engineering and math. Furthermore, I hope some of them consider running for public office and add their expertise to the policy world! I am very thankful for these future leaders and ask that you please join me in congratulating them on their wonderful achievements and wishing the top five the best of luck as they represent the United States in Singapore.

Mr. Speaker, my vote for rollcall No. 168 on the amendment offered by Representative Chabot to H.R. 5386, was recorded as a ``no.'' This vote does not reflect my intent to have my vote recorded as an ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William ``Bill'' Allen. Bill is leaving the House of Representatives after nearly 4 years of distinguished service to this institution as an attorney with the Office of House Employment Counsel. As an Associate Counsel in the Office of House Employment Counsel, Bill has provided legal advice and counsel on employment issues to at least 124 current Members of Congress, 18 House Committees, the House Officers, and the United States Capitol Police Board. Bill's clients can attest to his tremendous intelligence, legal prowess, creativity, and wit. In addition to his many other contributions, in November 2005, Bill presented oral arguments on the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause before a rare en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A Connecticut native and son of Frederick E. Allen and the late Evelyn M. Allen, Bill was raised in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Following his junior year of high school, Bill spent a week as part of a fellowship program sponsored by the Connecticut Congressional delegation. As a true New Englander, Bill grew to be a diehard Boston Red Sox fan and his faith was finally rewarded in October 2004 when the Red Sox won their first World Series in 86 years.

A rare ``Triple Hoo'', Bill earned his Bachelor of Science, Masters in Business Administration, and Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia. While at the University of Virginia, Bill represented the Engineering School, the Darden School, and the Law School on the University's renowned student-run Honor Committee. Bill also served as an officer in the Raven Society and the Virginia Alpha Chapter of Tau Beta Pi, the national engineering honor society.

Bill is returning to private practice as a Senior Counsel at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P, where he worked from 1996 to 2002 on various class actions involving Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In private practice, Bill intends to resume his pro bono activity in the field of immigration law. While at the firm, Bill averaged over 100 hours of pro bono work per year and, in 2001, was named Akin Gump's Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year for the firm's D.C. office. Bill's pro bono representations included obtaining political asylum for a Sudanese national who had been repeatedly kidnapped and tortured by the Sudanese government and obtaining United States citizenship for an Ethiopian national.

The U.S. House of Representatives would like to express its deepest gratitude to Bill Allen for his invaluable service to this institution. Bill has worked tirelessly to provide House Employing offices with excellent legal advice and support. We wish Bill tremendous success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``We the People'' program. From April 29 to May 1, 2006, approximately 1,200 students from across the country participated in the national finals competition of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am pleased to announce that East Kentwood High School from Kentwood, Michigan, received the Unit 3 Award in the competition. The ``We the People'' program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

The ``We the People'' national finals is a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which the students ``testify'' before a panel of judges on constitutional topics. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Among the questions students responded to in this year's competition were: ``How would you distinguish a federal system from a unitary government and from a confederation?'' and ``What did the Framers hope to achieve by establishing a federal system of government?''

The following outstanding students represented East Kentwood High School: Mark Alonso, Sefik Arapovic, Tyler Boyd, Michelle

Burns, Aaron Dame, Karl DeVries, Kelsey Duinkerken, Branden Graf, Jessica Hoag, Jessica Hulbert, J.J. Jang, Jamie Overbeek, Alexa Schlosser, Paige Stevens, Peter Vu Tran, and Laura Vlieg.

I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Deborah Snow, who was responsible for preparing the students for the national finals competition. Also worthy of special recognition are Linda Start and Jim Troost, the state coordinators, and Susan Laninga, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the ``We the People'' program in my district.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues in the House, please join me in congratulating these young constitutional experts for their outstanding achievement.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy, along with Mr. Kirk from Illinois.

Chairman Taylor, let me first thank you and the committee for the funding you provided to the Science and Technology Account of the EPA. This important funding will be used to address a wide range of environmental and health concerns, including both long-term basic research and near-term applied research in order to discover knowledge and develop technologies necessary to protect our environmental resources and prevent future harm. I recognize that the apparently dramatic increases are primarily due to transfers of funds from other accounts, and for that reason I would strongly discourage any Member from offering an amendment to reduce this account. Nevertheless, the minor increases in basic science research funding are much appreciated, and I wanted to convey my appreciation.

But I rise today to discuss an issue of pressing national importance: the cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes comprise the largest source of freshwater in the world, 20 percent of the Earth's total and 95 percent of surface freshwater in the U.S., and they provide drinking water, transportation, and recreation to millions of people in the U.S. and Canada. However, the Great Lakes are

plagued by contaminants from years of industrial pollution that have settled into the sediments of tributaries to the lakes. These pollutants degrade the health of both humans and wildlife and disrupt the beneficial uses of those waters. The longer we take to clean up these areas, the greater likelihood that the sediment will be transported into the open waters of the Great Lakes where cleanup is virtually impossible.

The Great Lakes Legacy Act, which was enacted in 2002 in response to slow cleanup progress, authorizes the EPA to clean up contaminated sediments in the Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes. This Legacy Act has an added advantage in that 35 percent of the funding comes from the local communities and the States. The Legacy Act program was funded at about $29 million last year, and the authorization is $50 million. The bill your committee drafted provides a small increase to $29.6 million. Frankly, I considered offering an amendment to boost this total to that recommended by the President, to near full funding of $49 million. I am also disappointed by the $500,000 cut to the Great Lakes National Program Office, which operates the Legacy Act program, directs other EPA cleanup and protection actions in the lakes, and helps to coordinate the activities of other Federal agencies within the region. But I decided against offering an amendment because I recognize that limited resources are available to you in this bill because of your small allocation.

I can assure you that I am not the only one concerned about these funding levels. Last year over 1,500 Federal, State, and local government officials, scientists, engineers, and other stakeholders participated in the President's groundbreaking Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. This diverse group of experts and advocates developed a strategic action plan for restoring the Great Lakes. Among the recommendations was $150 million in annual funding for the Legacy Act. This funding level is justified because of the success of the six projects that are completed or underway or in the pipeline and nine other potential projects being considered by the EPA. In fact, Federal and State officials involved in cleaning up contaminated sediment have recently estimated that 75 million cubic yards of sediment need to be remediated at a total cost range of $1.6 billion to $4.4 billion. The comparatively small amounts in the Legacy Act will help leverage State, local, and private dollars and get some of these ready-to-go projects off the ground.

Chairman Taylor, I urge you to work with me and my Great Lakes colleagues on increasing funding for this important, oversubscribed program, and help to jump-start restoration efforts for this national treasure. We simply cannot wait.

I yield now to my friend from Illinois, a stalwart champion of Great Lakes restoration and my Cochair of the Great Lakes Task Force, Mr. Kirk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his assurance. I thank him for his consideration.

And I also wish to thank the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House for being generous with his time and also for his outstanding work over the years in working for the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement at the end of May 2006, I rise to thank Mr. James S. (Jim) Murphy for his 29 years of outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives.

Jim began his career with the House on October 11, 1977, and served in positions within the Office of the Clerk and the Finance office

of the Chief Administrative Officer. As a Team Leader within the Office of Financial Counseling, he provided financial assistance and guidance to all Member and Committee offices including monitoring and projecting available fund balances and ensuring expenditures comply with both House and Committee rules and regulations.

Jim has provided financial guidance to every entity of the House, assuring that House staff and vendors are paid accurately. His passionate customer service and tireless commitment to the countless House staff members who have worked with him will be deeply missed.

On behalf of the entire House community, I extend congratulations to Jim for his many years of dedication and contributions to the financial management of the House. We wish Jim many wonderful years enjoying his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of her retirement in June 2006, I rise to thank Mrs. Estelle Jones for 29 years of outstanding service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Throughout the years Estelle has made significant contributions managing the employee benefit programs for the U.S. House of Representatives and providing oversight to the processing of staff employee benefits for the U.S. House of Representatives. She began her career at the House on June 15, 1977, as an Employee Benefits Clerk in the Office of Personnel and Benefits, Office of Finance, under the Office of the Clerk. In January 1980, she assumed the title of Personnel Control Clerk, supervising the paperwork flow of the Employee Benefits Clerk. Estelle later accepted the position of Benefits Counselor, remaining with the Office of Personnel and Benefits. On December 1, 1987, she was promoted to Assistant Supervisor for the Office of Personnel and Benefits until November 12, 1995, when she accepted the appointment as Director of the Office of Personnel and Benefits, Human Resources for the Chief Administrative Officer. As Director of Personnel and Benefits, Estelle also served as the House Benefits Officer for both Health Benefits and Retirement with the Office of Personnel Management. She had the overall responsibility for the quality, accuracy and timeliness of submissions of all benefits records to OPM. She has provided many years of employee benefit support and guidance to the countless House staff members who have worked in this great institution throughout the last 29 years.

On behalf of the entire House community, I extend congratulations to Estelle for her many years of dedication and outstanding contributions to the U.S. House of Representatives. We wish Estelle many wonderful years in fulfilling her retirement dreams with her husband, Jack, and her children, Justin and Stephanie.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise and defend the bill that is before us.

I am astounded at some of the debate I have heard here, including rising gas prices, which has nothing to do with this bill.

We hear a lot about a culture of corruption. That is utter nonsense. I am proud of my colleagues in this body, by and large, very hardworking, good people trying to do the people's business honestly and well.

The point is, we have to put in place some restrictions, some rules to deal with those few who stray and do something that shouldn't be done. That is what this bill is about. It is fair. It is reasonable. It will provide penalties for those who violate the rules of the

House or the laws of this land, and that is precisely what we need, and it is important to pass that bill today. We cannot dilly dally with amendments that weaken it or with recommittals that change the intent of it.

We want a bill that will work. We want a bill that the Senate will look at and say, this is wonderful, let us pass it, too. We have to accommodate the principles of this body. We have to work and put in place all of the components of this bill which have been carefully worked out on both sides of the aisle, so that we will have a good bill, a fair bill. And I urge that we adopt this bill.