Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5450, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the ``Tom Bradley Post Office Building.'' Mr. Speaker, it is altogether fitting and proper that we name this for the late Mayor Tom Bradley, a man who tirelessly and selflessly served the citizens of Los Angeles, and who truly embodies the quintessential American success story. Born in Calvert, Texas, on December 29, 1917, Mayor Bradley was the son of sharecroppers and the grandson of a slave. In 1924, he moved to Los Angeles, where he was raised by his single mother and excelled in school and athletics. Upon graduation from high school, Mayor Bradley attended the University of California at Los Angeles, or UCLA, where he ran track and field, as well as achieving multiple records, and eventually became the team captain. When he graduated from UCLA in 1940, Mayor Bradley joined the Los Angeles Police Department and eventually was promoted to the rank of lieutenant. He was the first African American in the department's history to attain that rank. While working for the LAPD, Mr. Bradley attended Southwestern Law School at night and graduated in 1956. He passed the State Bar of California on the first try, and in 1961 resigned from the LAPD so he could practice law full time. Mr. Speaker, like so many of us, Tom Bradley entered politics because he cared about the community in which he resided. In 1949, he volunteered for an Los Angeles City Council campaign and during his time at the LAPD he became active in the Democratic Minority Conference and the California Democratic Council. In 1963, he threw his hat into the political ring and was elected to the Los Angeles City Council, representing the city's 10th District. That year marked the first time in the city's history that an African American was elected to the city council, Bradley being one of those three. After winning reelection in 1967, the always ambitious Bradley ran for mayor of Los Angeles in 1969. After winning the primary, Bradley lost in a runoff in his bid for mayor to Sam Yorty. Not discouraged by the outcome of his first try for mayor, Bradley ran again in 1973, this time beating Sam Yorty. Bradley became the first African American elected as mayor of Los Angeles. Mayor Bradley was able to win by building a multiethnic coalition that transcended race and united residents from all walks of life. Tom Bradley would go on to serve five consecutive terms. During his 20 years in office, Mayor Bradley did much for the citizens of Los Angeles. Under his stewardship, Los Angeles became the financial capital of California and gained international prominence as the gateway to the Pacific Rim. Not only did Bradley promote and expand international trade and travel through Los Angeles, he improved social services and the lives of those struggling most in the inner city. Mayor Bradley doubled the number of minorities and women working in City Hall. And though he endured much opposition, he successfully brought civilian control over the Los Angeles Police Department. Aside from the economic development and skyline of new and impressive buildings in downtown Los Angeles, many would argue that Mayor Bradley's greatest accomplishment surrounded the 1984 Summer Olympics hosted in Los Angeles. Amid much skepticism, Mayor Bradley was able to not only bring the games to Los Angeles, but he helped make them a huge success. Los Angeles received fame and publicity. And when the games left town, Los Angeles had a $250 million surplus that evidently continues to grow. After serving five terms as mayor, Tom Bradley resigned in 1993. He was the city's longest-serving mayor. Tragically, in 1996, Mayor Bradley suffered a debilitating stroke that left him partially paralyzed and not able to speak. Then, on September 29, 1998, Mayor Bradley passed away after suffering a heart attack. He was 80 years old. Surviving him was his wife of 57 years, Ethel Arnold Bradley, as well as his two daughters, Lorraine and Phyllis. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I leave this body with a quote from Mayor Bradley upon his resignation as mayor, where he said, ``Let us all, every one of us, pledge to make Los Angeles a beacon of mutual respect, justice, and tolerance from this day forward.'' I firmly believe this is a pledge that not only Angelenos should take, but that all Americans should consider. Mr. Speaker, it is proper that we pass this legislation in honor of the memory of Mayor Tom Bradley, a true American hero and success story. I urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I recently read with interest an article by Ralph Nader discussing his concerns with the Transportation Safety Administration's (TSA) use of ``whole-body imaging'' scanning machines. These machines, now called ``Advanced Imaging Technologies'' (AIT), allow TSA screeners to search for security risks by looking under passengers' clothing in a particularly privacy intrusive inspection. I share many of Mr. Nader's concerns, and include a copy of article from www.commondreams.org for the record. Last summer I worked with many of my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle to pass an amendment to the TSA Authorization bill which addressed some of the problems with the TSA's use of these AIT machines. Our amendment prohibited the use of AIT for mandatory primary screening at airports, required the TSA to give passengers the option of a pat-down search, and prohibited TSA from storing, transferring, or copying AIT images of passengers. These technologies need not invade Americans' privacy so intrusively in order to secure our flights and passengers effectively. After the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt, which AIT may or may not have helped prevent, I renewed my call for the inventors and manufacturers of AIT machines to enhance privacy protections to permit broader deployment of these technologies without the tradeoff to Americans' rights of privacy. Some AIT manufacturers have responded with scanners with ``auto detection'' capabilities, which reduce the costs and risks of error associated with human screeners. These scanners also produce images that go beyond merely blurring faces to blurring the outline of the scanned passenger's body. As I observed last December, these technologies have already been deployed in Amsterdam at the very airport from which the Christmas Day bomber traveled to the United States. My staff has seen these machines in action, and I feel the TSA should look seriously at whether these enhanced scanners could replace the privacy intrusive scanners currently deployed in airports across America. I hope my colleagues will join with me in discussing the security and privacy issues surrounding AIT, and the concerns raised by Mr. Nader and others. We all want air travel to be as safe as possible, but this can be accomplished without sacrificing our privacy and dignity, and that of our fellow Americans. [From www.commondreams.org, June 24, 2010] Naked Insecurity (By Ralph Nader) If you are planning to fly over the 4th of July holiday, be aware of your rights at airport security checkpoints. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has mandated that passengers can opt out of going through a whole body scanning machine in favor of a physical pat down. Unfortunately, opting for the pat down requires passengers to be assertive since TSA screeners do not tell travelers about their right to refuse a scan. Harried passengers must spot the TSA signs posted at hectic security checkpoints to inform themselves of their rights before they move to a body scanning security line. Since the failed Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight by a passenger hiding explosives in his underwear, TSA has accelerated its program of deploying whole body scanning machines, including x-ray scanners, at airport security checkpoints throughout the United States. Scanning machines peak beneath passengers' clothing looking for concealed weapons and explosives that can elude airport metal detectors. So far, TSA has placed 111 scanners at 32 airports. They expect to have 450 scanners deployed by the end of the year at an estimated cost of $170,000 each. Privacy, civil rights and religious groups object to whole body scanning machines as uniquely intrusive. Naked images of passengers' bodies are captured by these machines that can reveal very personal medical conditions such as prosthetics, colostomy bags and mastectomy scars. The TSA responded by setting the scanners to blur the facial features of travelers, placing TSA employees who view the images in a separate room and assuring the public that the images are deleted after initial viewing. Yet, a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Electronic Privacy Information Center against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uncovered documents showing that the scanning machines' procurement specifications include the ability to store, record and transfer revealing digital images of passengers. The specifications allow TSA to disable any privacy filters permitting the exporting of raw images, contrary to TSA assurances. It begs logic that the TSA would not retain their ability to store images particularly in the event of a terrorist getting through the scan and later attacking an aircraft. One of the first searches by the TSA would be to review images taken by the scanners to identify the attacker. The Amsterdam airport is using a less intrusive security device called ``auto detection'' scanning which generates stick figures instead of the real image of the person and avoids exposing passengers to radiation. Three United States Senators recently wrote to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano urging her to consider these devices. (http://bit.ly/bJFn5K) More pointedly, security experts, such as Edward Luttwak from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, have come forward questioning the effectiveness of whole body scanners since they can be defeated by hiding explosives in body cavities. The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, has stated that it is unclear whether scanners would have spotted the kind of explosives carried by the ``Christmas Day'' bomber. About one-half of these body scanning machines use low dose x-rays to scan passengers. Last May, a group of esteemed scientists from the University of California, San Francisco wrote to John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, voicing their concerns about the rapid roll out of scanners without a rigorous safety review by an impartial panel of experts. The scientists caution that the TSA has miscalculated the radiation dose to the skin from scanners and that there is ``good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.'' (http://n.pr/bKGCKx). David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, has also voiced caution about x-raying millions of air travelers. He was a member of the government committee that set the safety guidelines for the x-ray scanners, and he now says he would not have signed onto the report had he known that TSA wanted to scan almost every air traveler. (http://www.columbia.edu/djb3/) Passenger complaints to TSA and newspaper accounts of passenger experiences with scanners contradict TSA assurances that checkpoint signs provide adequate notice to travelers about the scanning procedure and the pat down option. Travelers, who reported that they were not fully aware what the scanning procedure involved, said they were not made aware of alternative search options. (http://nyti.ms/9hGtUO ) Many travelers complained about their privacy, and their families' privacy, being invaded. Some were concerned about the radiation risk, particularly to pregnant women and children. Some travelers felt bullied by rude TSA screeners. The Wall Street Journal reported that one woman who refused to go through the body scanner was called ``unpatriotic'' by the TSA screener. Expensive state-of-the-art security technology that poses potentially serious health risks to vulnerable passengers, invades privacy, and provides questionable security is neither smart nor safe. For the White House it is a political embarrassment waiting to happen. President Obama should suspend the body scanning program and appoint an independent panel of experts to review the issues of privacy, health and effectiveness. After such a review, should the DHS and TSA still want to deploy body scanners at airports, they should initiate a public rulemaking, which they have refused thus far, so that the public can have their say in the matter. If you experience any push-back from TSA screeners when you assert your right to refuse to go through a whole body scanner and request a pat down security search instead, please write to info@csrl.org. Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book--and first novel--is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. As Members of Congress, our constitutional mandate is to be responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars and assets. With the debt at $13 trillion and counting, this House and government have failed miserably in the task. During times of fiscal uncertainty, savvy businesses identify excess and underperforming assets and eliminate them. Our government must do the same. The American people agree. This week's winning YouCut proposal would incentivize Federal agencies to identify and eliminate underutilized Federal buildings and structures. According to OMB Director Peter Orszag, the Federal Government has 69,000 buildings and structures that meet this criteria. The total value of this excess property is nearly $19 billion. The one- time sale of these properties would generate substantial revenues to fill short-term budget gaps. The long-term savings would have a more substantial impact. A leaner real estate portfolio would allow the Federal bureaucracy to function effectively and efficiently, and most importantly, the taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for underused, sometimes vacant Federal properties. Current law prohibits the disposing of wasted property and cashing in on the savings. Most surplus property must be offered--often at no cost--to other government agencies, to State and local governments, to nonprofit organizations and others. Only at the end of this process is property offered at a competitive public sale. Federal taxpayers have missed opportunities to generate revenue and to reduce the deficit. For example, the Federal Government has conveyed, at no cost, a building in Los Angeles for a mob museum. A mob museum. Land in Massachusetts was conveyed for a public high school, where tuition is over $29,000 a year. And a building in Florida the Federal Government now leases back at a cost of over $100,000 a year. The proposal would direct OMB to sell these properties and transfer 80 percent of the proceeds to reduce the Federal debt. This would result in approximately $15 billion in debt reduction. The remaining 20 percent of the proceeds would act as an incentive to agencies to quickly dispose of the excess property. Even President Obama is starting to appreciate the need. On June 10, he issued a Presidential memorandum to department heads directing them to ``accelerate efforts to identify and eliminate excess properties.'' He went on to say, ``Both taxpayer dollars and energy resources are being wasted to maintain these excess assets.'' We seem to be in agreement with the President. We urge the Democrats to join us. Today, Congress can carry out the wishes of the American people, can support the President's effort to trim the Federal portfolio and take significant steps in getting our fiscal house back in order. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal. It's just common sense.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume. All right. Now, this bill is actually something I can get excited about and that I'm sure we can be in unison on. So I hope Chairman Towns, wherever he might be, hears that loud and clear. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1429, celebrating the symbol of the United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day. The American flag has been our national symbol for 233 years, and it remains a symbol of freedom wherever it is flown. Since 1777, when the Second Continental Congress adopted the Stars and Stripes, our flag has stood for liberty and justice. Flag Day was first celebrated throughout the country in 1885, as one early supporter, Bernard Cigrand, a Wisconsin schoolteacher, wanted June 14 to be known as ``Flag Birthday.'' The idea quickly caught on, and many people wanted to participate. In 1894, the Governor of New York asked that all public buildings fly the flag on June 14 to begin observing Flag Day. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed Flag Day as a national celebration. However, the holiday was not officially recognized until 1949 when President Harry Truman signed the National Flag Day bill. Since the beginning of our Republic, Americans have flown the flag to show their appreciation and pride for this great Nation. Every day, Americans pledge their allegiance to the flag, and our troops carry the flag as they defend the liberties for which it stands. On Flag Day, we remember the importance of our oldest national symbols, and we reflect on the loss of loved ones who died in defense of our Nation. Let us pledge allegiance to this flag, to declare our patriotism and to raise its colors high to express our pride and respect for the American way of life and for the freedom that it represents. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Resolution 879, supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week. Thousands of teachers in our country inspire our young children to want to learn and to teach them the vital skills they need both to succeed in their future careers and in their lives. We also cannot forget about the librarians, the cafeteria staff, the coaches, the janitors, the bus drivers, the crossing guards, the administrators, all those employees who dedicate their time, effort and talents in order to make sure that our kids are enjoying a safe environment and that they're welcomed into the classrooms and that they truly learn. Teachers simply do not receive the gratitude that they deserve. Most people can remember that one teacher who inspired them in some way and urged them to explore a subject further. Many of us simply would not have the same lives or careers without a special teacher to guide us. For me, that was Mr. Kobiashi in the fifth grade, who really inspired me to have a true appreciation for the environment and a true understanding of our oceans and all the living creatures and just inspired me to be a better person. I still remember him to this day and can't thank him enough for the service and the thousands of untold lives that he had touched along the way. Those are special people, and they ought to be recognized for their efforts, and while I know that this resolution is important, they truly get the satisfaction that they deserve and that they need by inspiring those young people throughout our country. Yet for all the effort and tireless hours the teachers put in every single day, we oftentimes forget to thank them formally as well. As a country, we need to do more to thank teachers and educators for their hard work and service to America's youth. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. American Education Week gives us the opportunity to take a week to think about and thank all the educators for their work. Hopefully this week will also inspire all Americans to think about the work that educators do, not just during American Education Week but every day, so that we begin to give teachers and educators the thanks and appreciation that they truly deserve; and that, in each individual community, those people, those parents and the others affected in the community, support their teachers, the educators and all the support staff, and all the moving parts that make these things happen so they can truly feel the love and support of a Nation and make that environment the very best environment it can be for our kids to learn. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I need to stand in opposition to this. Certainly, the Hollywood Walk of Fame has provided enjoyment for untold numbers of people. It's a great destination. Hollywood is certainly a unique treasure that is unique to the United States of America and specifically southern California. To my colleagues who wholeheartedly support and endorse and stand behind this resolution, maybe I'm a wet bucket of water on a parade; but I've got to tell you, I just don't feel like it's the proper role of the United States Congress to recognize the Hollywood Walk of Fame on its 50th anniversary. There are plenty of ways to recognize and to thank and congratulate the stars of Hollywood and the impact that they've had on the American ideal and the American entertainment industry. I just don't feel like it's the proper role of the United States Congress to do this, with all due respect. Recognizing educators, absolutely. We're about to recognize Flag Day, of course. Hollywood Walk of Fame? Maybe not so much. So with all due respect to the 50-plus colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have supported this resolution, I, for one, as a Representative of the United States Congress, simply cannot stand here and voice my support that this is a good use of the Congress' time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, Chairman Towns is one of my favorite people. I have really come to grow and appreciate him; I just happen to disagree with him on this. There are a lot of people on the Hollywood Walk of Fame who have done some amazing and great things, and for that they should be congratulated, but not necessarily from the United States Congress. There are a whole lot of people on that Walk of Fame we probably shouldn't recognize in any way, shape or form. The point I'm trying to make is there is a certain segment of our population, from the entertainment industry and those involved in sports, that gets more adulation from the public than they could possibly take, and yet we have true heroes, real heroes who don't get an ounce of appreciation from this body that really do deserve it. The other day I was watching television--this was just recently--and there was a National Guardsman who pulled around a corner--and I can't remember what State it was, I want to say it was the State of Washington, but I could be wrong on that. All of a sudden, there was a truck that had overturned in a river, and suddenly this guy found himself in a situation where there is somebody who is struggling for his life. He and a few other people, just citizens who woke up that morning and had no idea that they were going to be the heroes that day, went down that river, they smashed open that window, they grabbed a rope and saved this person's life. Where are the recognitions for those true heroes? I don't think Sophia Loren needs any more congratulations from the United States Congress. And as important as it is to the economy in southern California--I've got an amusement park in northern Utah called the Lagoon. I'm not coming to the United States Congress asking for recognition of it.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sure, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, look, there are lots of reasons America and the world like Hollywood. I just don't believe, in my heart of hearts, that the United States Congress, in a resolution by the House of Representatives, is the right way to recognize the Hollywood Walk of Fame. From my vantage point, you certainly don't look to the Hollywood Walk of Fame or to Hollywood in general for the principles and values that are representative of the United States of America. That Paul Reubens' Pee-wee Herman has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is a far cry from Ronald Reagan's having a star. Again, I am just one voice here in this body, but I've got to tell you, as to the people I represent, I'll have a hard time going back to them, saying, You know what? I did the work of the people, and I'm back there, spending the people's money, and we recognized the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I just can't do it. Again, with all due respect, there are a lot of good Members back there, and that might be an interesting debate to take the few thousand people and go back and forth. I'm going to start with Paul Reubens, and I appreciate your starting with Ronald Reagan. Somewhere in between is probably the right answer. We need to get on with the Nation's business, with the debt and with the other crises that we are dealing with. That is my point with this, Madam Speaker. I won't take any more of the people's time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, good point. I'm happy to recognize Ronald Reagan, and I appreciate your support. I'll bring a resolution at some point recognizing Ronald Reagan. There's a corner worth standing on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, these issues come before the United States Congress. I think there is a time and a place to recognize significant achievements within the United States of America. I am going to ask for a recorded vote on this. It will be an interesting question. My point is, the economy is struggling; we've got real issues out there. Like I said, there is a time and a place to make these kinds of recognitions. I just don't know that this rises to the same level as recognizing teachers or nurses who hold people's hand as they are there in the final days of their lives. There are a lot of things that I think we could unanimously look at and recognize. I, for one, don't think that Hollywood needs more recognition. And with all due respect, I, for one, at least will be voting against this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply just want to note for the record that, quoting from the CBO report of June 7, 2010, regarding H.R. 2142: ``Finally implementing H.R. 2142 could lead to more effective management of government agencies at a lower cost. Any such savings would depend on amounts provided in future appropriations acts.'' I just wanted to note that for the record. The intention of this is good. I think in a bipartisan way, we want the government to become more efficient. How we do that--well, there are some disagreements, but the intention of this bill I think is a positive one. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We're currently dealing with a stalled economy, high unemployment, record budget deficits, and a debt that seems insurmountable. The challenge this Congress faces cannot be more clear. We must cut wasteful spending. We have to do it. We have no other choice. The Federal Government's spending to reduce our Nation's debt is paramount to our successful future. If we want to be the world's economic and military super power, we're going to have to change the way we do business in Washington, D.C. Now performance-based budgeting can be an effective tool to do just that. It can make clear what Federal programs are not performing and then spell out what Federal programs are duplicative in nature. But performance-based budgeting dictates that we identify the problem and enact a solution. It's not enough to just recognize there's a problem. Most all of us can step forward and say we're spending too much money. But the core question becomes, What are the changes that we're going to make? One of the challenges that we see within the bill is that it's not necessarily performance-based budgeting because the question becomes, ultimately, What are you going to do about it? It sets out to diagnosis a problem that we already know exists but does not necessarily follow through and prescribe a cure. We know that there are duplicative and nonperforming Federal programs. We know this. We need to finish the job and actually cut those programs. To be complete, the bill must do just that. In its current form, this bill does not necessarily help us rein in these programs. For example, just last week, our Information Policy Subcommittee held a hearing on the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, a program which appears to give grants that are duplicative of grants in the National Archives and Records Administration. I questioned then, and I ask it again today, Why should we continue to fund this duplicative program? It costs the committee nothing to find this duplication, so why, if we cannot trim $10 million of Federal spending without a penny, then why should we authorize $150 million to be spent? What exactly do we expect for it to bring in return? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cause the Federal Government to spend $150 million to determine what many people already know. We have Federal Government programs which are nonperforming and duplicative, but the bill before us leaves wasteful programs intact. As we came to the floor, one of the amendments that was offered, and I really, truly do appreciate, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Cuellar added some language that says, ``Agencies shall fund the reporting requirements of this act out of existing budgets and are authorized to make necessary reprogramming of funds.'' I sincerely appreciate it in every way, shape, or form. This goes a huge way to making this palatable to a lot of conservatives that are concerned about spending an additional $150 million. I still question why it takes so much money for people to just do the jobs that they're supposed to do. But please know the sincerity in which the sponsor is offering this is greatly appreciated in every way, shape, or form. It's done in the right spirit. I think it goes a huge way to causing a lot of people to support this, particularly from the Republican side of the aisle. I cannot thank you enough for the attitude and the approaching and the actual listening to that. For that, we're very thankful. I do wish that this bill would come under a rule--an open rule. It's hard to believe, but as a freshman in this United States Congress, I will likely go through my entire freshman Congress, the 111th Congress, having never experienced even once an open rule on the floor of the House of Representatives. That's a shame. That's a shame. There should be a way for a mechanism where this bill is brought under a rule, an open rule, where Members on both sides of the aisle can offer amendments and we can vote on those amendments. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. We should not necessarily pass a bill that does not have tough enforcement mechanisms. We can and must do better than this. This body must make tough choices to eliminate wasteful government spending. It should not pass legislation with great titles--A-plus on the titles you're giving these bills. They're good. Who's going to vote against efficiency, effectiveness, and performance. But it doesn't necessarily reflect what's in the body of the bill. My colleague Aaron Schock from Illinois offered a great amendment in the committee that was shot down which would put a sunsetting provision in programs that are not performing. In the previous administration, there was a Web site called expectmore.gov. It did an assessment of programs. It was pushed by the Office of Management and Budget. It had dashboard indicators as to how these programs that were instituted by Congress, how they were performing based on their own set of criteria that was set in advance. It allowed the American people to actually have exposure. Unfortunately, expectmore.gov under the current administration is no longer maintained. The information is not up to date; and, consequently, the American people do not have access to the information that they do deserve. I would encourage the administration and supporters from both sides of the aisle to reinstitute this Web site. I want to conclude by quoting Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag. On May 24 this year, Mr. Orszag said, ``We should never tolerate taxpayer dollars going to programs that are duplicative or ineffective. Because, especially in this current fiscal environment, we cannot afford this waste.'' He is right. He is absolutely right. We cannot afford to let these programs go on, and Congress needs to step to the plate and do something about it. So I do appreciate the amendment that was offered that will go a long way to getting a lot of different support. I do just wish this bill would come under a rule. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about this resolution is the vague nature of what these so-called national policies would be. Again, I would like to ask the gentleman if he would respond to a question. Is H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey bill, one of the, quote, ``national policies''? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I concur with the gentleman and the idea that we need to pursue green technologies. In my opinion, that includes nuclear technologies, getting the regulatory bodies out of the way so that we can pursue the adoption of natural gas vehicles and other types of things and technologies that would truly help our environment. I would simply also, Mr. Speaker, suggest that when the characterizations of where the scientific community is on this--I do personally object to the quote ``all scientists agree,'' end quote. I don't think that is the case. From my purview and my perspective, I don't believe that, quote, ``all scientists agree.'' I do think there is still debate in the scientific community, and I think that's a healthy thing along the way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, there have been some assertion that this is a worse threat than what's going on in the gulf. The most immediate threat to the oceans, at least that we see, is what's going on with the oil spill in the gulf. And it is nothing short of shocking that this President has yet to even call the leader of British Petroleum. Why he can't even make a call after nearly 50 days is truly absolutely shocking. Again, I think we need to continue to have a debate and talk about the need to address the acidification in the oceans, but I do find that this House resolution is ambiguous when it talks about adopting national policies, which I think is a thinly veiled attempt to say that we should be adopting the cap-and-trade bill. Further, I find that this bill is redundant in terms of the fact that Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act last year, authorizing money to the tune of some $76 million. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the gentleman who is presenting this bill and his clear passion for this. But, Mr. Speaker, when it says in the very first sentence that the United States should adopt national policies, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an attempt to try to say that we should be passing the cap-and-trade bill, which I am totally opposed to. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill; I don't think it's needed. We have made a commitment, on behalf of the United States of America, with the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act that was passed in an omnibus bill last year. The money has been set aside. The administration needs to do its work, and I would encourage them to do that. This is an issue that does need to be addressed. We don't try to dismiss that in any way, shape or form; but, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not needed at this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 989 would urge the United States to adopt national policies and pursue international agreements to prevent ocean acidification to study the impacts of ocean acidification and to address the effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and coastal economies. As stated in the resolution, Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act last year. This legislation authorized funding for research activities to better understand ocean acidification. This is to the tune of approximately $76 million. I would stress that, prior to adopting national policies and international agreements which could adversely impact American jobs, the administration needs to continue its efforts to conduct research to better understand ocean acidification to ensure that efforts to address its effects do not necessarily harm the United States economy. We have dedicated significant money for this over the course of time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman help me understand why this resolution is needed at this time. I don't want to try to debate-- I appreciate your passion for this topic. It's evident and I appreciate that. But given that we already passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act and authorized some $76 million, why the need for this additional resolution?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. And if the gentleman will respond to another question. It talks in the very first sentence, ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should adopt national policies.'' By ``national policies'' does the gentleman mean the cap- and-trade? What are national policies, in your mind?

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentlewoman who just stood here, the fact remains the Democrats are not introducing a budget. One of the fundamental principle things that this Congress should do is introduce a budget. This Congress should be embarrassed that they haven't introduced a budget that we can debate and discuss. It's one of the things that's lacking in this so-called leadership here. They may want to talk about Bush, but the reality is the Democrats have the House and Senate and the Presidency, and they owe it to the American people, they owe it to this institution to produce a budget so that we can debate and discuss it in the United States Congress. It's one of the fundamental things we should do. This Congress should be embarrassed that it has yet to produce a budget.