Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. My friend from Indiana with whom I have worked on so many issues, I tend to agree with him on the substance of the issue, an individual being able to keep a weapon in their own home to defend themselves, but the issue here is larger than that. It really goes to the question of respecting the rights of the District of Columbia to make their own laws and the mayor and the council have spoken on this innumerable times. They seem to have the support of the vast majority of the city. Our committee held a lengthy hearing on this, hearing from all sides just 2 days ago. It was an illuminating hearing that I think highlighted both sides very, very well. But to me the issue comes down to one of home rule. Are we going to allow cities and States to make these jurisdictions or are we going to try to federalize everything out of Washington? I would just caution my colleagues that once we start doing everything out of Washington, it may be on your side, but tomorrow it could go the other way. We have to respect the Federal system that was set up. This does not affect the workings of government, so in my judgment, Congress really should not be intervening in this matter although we have the legal right to do so. I also want to note that there is pending the case of Parker v. District of Columbia that offers the opportunity for second amendment advocates to answer with finality the question of does this violate the second amendment. Passing this amendment today could possibly moot that decision which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. This is one opportunity because the court has looked for ways out of deciding this decision. This is a way we may be able to speak with clarity and finality. If this amendment passes, we won't have that. It is a very two-edged sword, and I urge opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the D.C. Personal Protection Amendment. Let me say that I respect my colleague from Indiana's perspective on this issue. There is room in the Congress for debate on the merits of some of our nation's gun laws. My opposition is based on the legislation's blatant and potentially dangerous assault on home rule in the District of Columbia. The Committee on Government Reform held a hearing this week on this very issue. We heard compelling stories from Mayor Tony Williams, Chief Charles Ramsey, and an array of witnesses, including residents of the District of Columbia and representatives from national think tanks and community organizations on both sides of the debate. I was disappointed that my friend from Indiana, the author of this amendment, was not able to attend the hearing to hear these views himself. I am a strong supporter of Home Rule. For our system of federalism and democracy to work, states and localities need to be able to make their own decisions on these sorts of matters--even if some of us think they're bad ones. There is an appropriate place for a debate on D.C.'s gun laws--and that place is the chambers of the District of Columbia Council, not the floor of the House of Representatives. Proponents of this bill want to frame this debate in terms of the Constitutionality of the District's law. Various lawsuits have been filed in recent years questioning the constitutionality of the D.C. gun law under the Second Amendment. There's a case pending on appeal right now, Parker v. District of Columbia, that offers the opportunity for the Second Amendment challenge to be answered with finality. Proponents of this amendment have the opportunity for the courts to declare that the D.C. ban violates the Second Amendment. So what's the rush? What are they afraid of? We (and for that matter, the City Council) can consider the gun ban in light of the result of that case. In fact, if this Amendment becomes law, it could moot the ability of the Court of Appeals to address this critical 2d Amendment with finality. We are only here today because of Congress' plenary power over the District. This is a constitutional authority that is, unfortunately, occasionally abused, as is the case with this legislation. D.C. leaders have enacted gun laws that reflect their constituents' view that any increase in the number of guns in the District increases the odds that crimes will be committed with those guns. That's their view, and it should be respected. I'm not saying I agree with the District's gun ban. Frankly, I don't. But I strongly oppose this amendment because I have a profound respect for Home Rule, for the right of local jurisdictions to craft their own local laws--even laws some of us don't agree with. This District law has no bearing on Congress and no bearing on the ability of the federal government to conduct its business. That should be the litmus test for federal involvement in the District.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any attempts to cut funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. I think this is a time to reaffirm, not dismantle, our commitment to this program, to the people of Colombia and to American citizens who want illegal drugs off their streets. How can we cut funding when we are seeing tremendous results in illegal crop eradication? Coca cultivation in Colombia has been reduced by 33 percent since 2002, and opium poppy cultivation dropped 52 percent in 2004 alone. As a result of ACI funding, we have seen unprecedented levels of drug interdiction. And interdiction is what this amendment goes to, cutting $100 million. From January to May of this year, 71.7 metric tons were seized from traffickers and destroyed before reaching our neighborhoods. Each week brings news of new seizures of cocaine and heroin, interdictions that are usually the result of U.S. supplied intelligence. In fact, just last month, Colombian authorities seized 13.8 tons of cocaine worth about $350 million in what was one of the largest drug busts in history. Interdiction efforts like these would not be possible if the gentleman's amendment passes. The Colombian Government is reestablishing state presence in areas where the country has lacked it for a century. Criminals who have remained at bay for years are being captured and extradited to the U.S. for prosecution. Colombia has extradited 271 Colombian citizens to the United States since August of 2002, mostly on narcotics related charges. How do we justify pulling the plug on ACI funding when we are seeing record numbers of extraditions to the U.S. of FARC and drug cartel members? In 2004 alone, more than 11,000 narcoterrorists were captured. More than 7,000 terrorists have deserted their organizations since President Uribe took office. Thousands of weapons and rounds of ammunition have been surrendered. The demobilization and reincorporation of illegal armed groups are part of a process that is providing stability to the entire region. Colombians are finally beginning to feel safer. The murder rate dropped 14 percent in 2004. It has dropped 25 percent thus far this year. Plan Colombia is working. I have been down there several times. I have seen firsthand just a month ago the devastation that drug production and trafficking has on that country. But to those who question our investment, I would ask them to visit Colombian soldiers who have lost their limbs or their eyesight or sustained permanent disabilities in their battle to return peace to their nation and keep drugs off American streets. On a recent trip, we accompanied Colombian National Police to a manual eradication site in the mountains and helped them pull the coca crop from mountainous terrain that helicopters cannot reach. These are dedicated people giving up their lives to destroy the drug trade and rid their country of drugs and violence and prevent their illegal importation to the United States. Our travels have shown how critical U.S. assistance is to their government. Of course it is not all rosy and a lot of obstacles remain. But the Uribe administration is committed to this war. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that now is the time not to turn our backs on the progress we are making. We cannot win this war on drug-supported terrorism without the proper tools. I urge a ``no'' vote on the McGovern amendment.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me say to my friend from New York, I appreciate very much the intention of the amendment. I have got to oppose it in its current form. It seems to me that this Act has some very good attributes to it, and the argument may be in some of the designated industry groups that are listed. One of the problems is that the participating agencies currently will designate areas that are currently dominated by small businesses as small business set-asides. These are areas that in full and open competition, small businesses are going to win anyway, and by using their percentages in these areas, it means that small businesses who could use the set-asides in other areas are not able to use it. So I think what we have here is the law of unintended consequences. We are taking areas such as lawn services, roofing, siding contractors, glass and glazing contractors, masonry, areas that in full and open competition, small businesses are winning by overwhelming margins; but the agencies are taking these areas and saying we are going to designate these as small business set-asides and use their percentages in these areas, and that means that small businesses cannot penetrate other areas. So it is really for these reasons that I rise to oppose the amendment, because I think it shifts the burden in these cases where small businesses are currently winning open competition, and it uses the allocation for set-asides into these areas that I think small businesses could benefit in other areas, in some of the technology areas, in some of the IT areas. That is my concern. Let me just make one point. I think the argument ought to be some of the designated industry groups in this case where maybe we see large businesses coming in and taking over, and we could work under those areas appropriately if the case can be made that small business dominance in these areas is not hit, but without that we have not added a nickel to what small businesses get under the set-aside programs. We have not added a percentage. We just shift the burden.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this does not add a percentage. This does not add a nickel to the small business set-aside program. It does not add a percentage. It just shifts the burden. And the argument ought to be going into the particular designated industry groups where the gentlewoman is claiming small businesses used to dominate and are losing out, and let us look at those and let us try to be fair in that way. But for heaven's sake, in areas like lawn care, in some of these services levels that are low tech, let us not set aside small businesses set-asides there where small businesses dominate in full and open competition. Let us put them in areas where we can improve it.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely because what happens is when we shift the small business set-aside allocations into these programs, we are taking it away from other programs, these areas where small businesses are designated. I do not know about the gentlewoman's percentage of 78 percent 38 percent, but what I would argue is if there is an issue here, I know I would be happy to work with her, and I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, to look at some of these designated industry groups where perhaps small business is not dominating and was intended to, and we work on that rather than gutting the whole provision. That would be the approach that I would take. I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman on that. But this amendment guts the whole program, and I think ultimately it is not good for the government because I think the government is not getting small business set-asides in some of the innovative areas where they can go and they are giving it to areas where small businesses tend to dominate in full and open competition. So that is my rationale for opposing the amendment.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they may get it here, but they will take it away from set-asides in other areas because the overall set-aside percentages in these participating agencies does not change at all. So the problem with that is that we are shifting it and we are moving the small business set-asides into areas that small businesses also dominate. I will refer the gentlewoman, frankly, to the statute in the areas that are the designated industry groups under the statute, and I think it is clear looking at this that many of these areas, siding contractors, roofing, masonry, framing contractors, these are areas that are traditionally dominated by small business and will continue to be. But I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman on designated industry groups and changing that around if she can make the case.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I too understand the gentleman's concern on particular employees. The difficulty here is if the Congress starts coming out with each and every single group trying to protect this group or the other from competitive sourcing, we lose basically one of the best tools the executive branch has to make it run more efficiently. Federal employees win 70 percent of the A-76 competitions at this point. But in almost every case, even when they have won, they have retooled themselves and made themselves more efficient than when they started. And to cherrypick one group or another, I think we will have every Member coming to the floor trying to protect this group or the other group, and the whole thing falls apart. And if that happens, the Federal executive branch loses its major tool in trying to become more efficient and saving the taxpayers' dollars. I do not know anything about the specifics of this one, but I know from a committee perspective we have tried to look at this, we have tried to give Federal employees appeals rights now, so that if they lose it that they can have appeals rights and things they have not had in the past. We have tried to give them protections. But, Mr. Chairman, I would also join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in opposing this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. First of all, to my friends here, I understand their concern. I tell them that I do not know anything about this particular office. But it is not privatization; it is competitive sourcing. Basically, this allows the government sector to compete with the private sector to see how we can deliver a service to taxpayers the most efficiently. The government wins 70 percent of these competitions, but in most cases ends up being more efficient as a result of that. They are able to retool their organizations and do things that, without the competition, the marketplace would probably not be incentivized to do. Secondly, there are no numerical quotas or figures. In fact, Congress took those out several years ago when this administration set targeted figures in terms of the amounts of competitive sourcing they wanted to do under OMB Circular A-76. So that should not be part of this. It is not legal to be doing this, and I hope that is not driving it in this case. But, again, for Congress to come back and cherrypick different segments and say, this is exempt, and this is exempt, basically destroys the whole system. And once again, although I am sympathetic with where the gentleman wants to go on this, I think there are other ways to accomplish it rather than coming to Congress. I think this will encourage everybody to offer these kinds of amendments, and we will lose one of the greatest tools we have toward government efficiency, and I would urge the amendment be defeated.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, moving to one other matter, it is my understanding that the 2006 Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations bill requires agencies to notify the Committee on Appropriations 15 days before funds are reprogrammed to implement e- government initiatives. As the chairman of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the E-Government Act, and in fact I was one of the authors of the E- Government Act, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) if he will share information that he obtains with the Committee on Government Reform on the funding and implementation of e-government initiatives in this bill so we could be so advised.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) on an important issue regarding democracy in Venezuela. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, several Members of Congress went to Venezuela and heard about the intimidation by the Venezuelan Government of a democracy advocate named Maria Corina Machado. Ms. Machado is the leader of Sumate, a Venezuelan nongovernmental electoral watchdog. Currently, she is charged by the Venezuelan Government for accepting illicit foreign financial contributions from our own National Endowment For Democracy. Recently, Ms. Machado was invited to the White House to see the President and share her concerns about the endangered state of democracy in Venezuela. This Congress should stand behind Ms. Machado and support the growth of democracy in Venezuela.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Al Van Metre, the founder and CEO of Van Metre Company. This recognition is well deserved for his contributions to the communities of Northern Virginia. Al Van Metre attended the U.S. Naval Academy from June 1944 to March 1945 before graduating from George Washington University with a degree in engineering. Mr. Van Metre established the Van Metre Company in 1955, since that time his company has built over 15,000 single family homes, town homes and manages 2,200 apartments throughout Northern Virginia. These dwellings proudly serve over 50,000 homeowners and residents throughout Northern Virginia. The developments created by Van Metre Company include Lansdowne On the Potomac, Broadlands and Stone Ridge. These planned communities have received numerous Finest for Family Living Awards including the developments of Lansdowne on the Potomac in 2001, The Lee at McNair Station in 1999 and a three time winner from 1998-2000 for The Fitzgerald at Broadlands. The company, based in Burke, Virginia, has received numerous ``Major Achievements in Marketing Excellence'' awards, including the Best Community Brochure, Best Print Advertising, Best Web Site and Multi-Media Campaign for Planned Communities. The success over the last half-century, growth of the company and award winning planned communities are due to the hard work and dedication of Mr. Van Metre. Not only has Mr. Van Metre helped to create superb living communities, but he has been an active member in the community serving as a board member for the Navy Marine Coast Guard Resident Foundation and the Naval Academy foundation. He also served as the chairman of the Race Committee of the Northern Virginia Hospice Cup and as a board member of the St. Stephen's School In Alexandria, Virginia. With his background and support for the Naval Academy and as Chairman of the Northern Virginia Hospice Cup, it is no surprise that Mr. Van Metre is an avid and accomplished sailor. He has guided his yacht, the Running Tide, to wins at virtually every major yachting event on the East Coast. He was a five-time overall annual champion in Chesapeake Bay racing and has earned over 200 trophies in his distinguished sailing career. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Al Van Metre for helping to create planned communities that benefit numerous residents and families in Northern Virginia. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Al Van Metre on his accomplishments and in wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the late Richard Edmund Clement. He is survived by his seven children, 24 grandchildren and former wife, Joan. The love that Mr. Clement displayed for his country was not only evident in his work, but also recognized by his family. A second generation American, Mr. Clement had served his country throughout his life by working in both the private and public sectors. With his expertise in the area of counterterrorism, Mr. Clement was able to contribute to the capturing of terrorists in Central America during the 1970s. His accomplishments led to his appointment as Director of the Federal Protection Agency during the Reagan Administration. Working with many great American leaders throughout the 1970s and 1980s he was willing to stand in the shadows and continued to serve and protect his country. The resolve that Mr. Clement displayed for his work had a lasting impact on his family and many others. His children and grandchildren are carrying on the tradition of service that Mr. Clement provided to our country. Mr. Clement's sons Craig and Christopher along with grandsons Christopher, Aaron and Andrew have either served or are currently serving in this Nation's armed forces. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the life and work of Mr. Clement, and express my deepest condolences to all who knew and loved him.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the Manzullo amendment, which is part of the en bloc amendments, and also the Blunt amendment. The Manzullo amendment, basically, will radically change the current application of the Buy American Act. I think it could place the United States in violation of more than 20 critical defense memoranda of understanding with some of our strong allies like Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom. Under DOD policies, under Buy American, there is a 50 percent cost differential if they cannot certify that a product is made with more than half of its components in the United States. In a global economy it is often hard to certify, and we actually put some of these companies at risk with their certifications. Some companies have had to set up costly accounting procedures so that they can track where different pieces of a product's components are assembled around the world to add up: Does it comply with the Buy American Act or does it not comply with the Buy American Act? This amendment would sweep away the current waivers of the Buy American Act that have been carefully negotiated with our strongest military partners, and I am afraid will invoke retaliation if they are upheld. The restriction would cause the Department of Defense problems in purchasing the best goods for a fair price, particularly commercial technologies, so we would be denied in some cases the best cameras, the best laboratory and surveillance equipment. Even the BlackBerrys, which Members have, would be subject to this because 50 percent of its components are not assembled in the United States. With this we would deprive our soldiers of the best equipment, the best equipment in many cases that would make them more efficient. In some cases it could make them even less safe. And that is the problem with this amendment. Our soldiers deserve the best wherever its components are assembled, and this blanks out some of the waiver provisions that we have under the current law. We are already challenged to compete in a global marketplace where we do not always have a competitive advantage. Dismantling the regime of defense memoranda of understanding that have helped create and support the vibrant world marketplace in the end only hurts American workers. Besides violating our defense MOUs, this provision will require DOD to pay an artificially high price for products it needs to protect all of us. Defense dollars are already scarce. We need to be getting the maximum bang for our bucks, and the difficulty with our procurement system is that the Members try to do too many things with them. In the Blunt amendment case, they want to give a differentiation for people who hire a number of National Guard or Reserve officers; in this case, it is Buy American; in other cases, it may be a small or minority business. At the end of the day, this creates many inefficiencies in our procurement system that cost our taxpayers billions of dollars when, in fact, we do not have them. I think when we go out and procure goods for our soldiers, we ought to get the best goods, we ought to get them at the lowest price. The American taxpayer demands it and our soldiers demand it. Under this amendment, more businesses would be required to certify compliance with the Buy American Act, potentially exposing them to civil false claims and other sanctions even if they have made a good- faith effort to comply with these government-unique requirements. This creates significant financial and legal burdens for industry, given that more and more IT, information technology, so critical for our defense efforts, is being sourced, in a global economy, from around the world. Some companies have responded by setting up costly, labor-intensive product tracking systems that are not needed in their commercial business simply to sell to the government. That ends up costing the taxpayer more. Some companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the Federal marketplace, denying us access to some of the latest, most cost-effective, safest products for our soldiers. This radical expansion of the application of the Buy American Act will impose financial and legal burdens on commercial companies that sell to the government. In fact, it could well prevent our brave servicemembers from obtaining the best technology to protect them and to protect our Nation. This increased restriction on DOD's ability to obtain needed technology from the world market is basically a Cold War anachronism. Given DOD's growing reliance on information technology and other products and the current global nature, these are crippling in their restrictive provisions.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Saul Stern who will receive the Project Interchange Am Yisrael Chai Award on May 25, 2005 at the Park Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC. This award is presented by Project Interchange to Mr. Stern to honor his contribution to the organization. Project Interchange is the only national organization solely dedicated to providing educational seminars in Israel for America's policy and opinion makers. With exceptional leadership, Mr. Stern has guided more than 3,500 prominent Americans, including Members of Congress, congressional aides, state officials and other community leaders to experience Israel through intensive seminars. These seminars allow political and civil leaders to witness democracy at work in Israel and to provide an understanding to the complex challenges that face that country. The Project Interchange Am Yisrael Chai Award recognizes Mr. Stern's contribution to the Jewish community including his work in advocating Jewish interests, strengthening public support for Israel, building ties with other faith, minority, and ethnic groups and establishing a framework for social action for over six decades. Mr. Stern has served as a life-long civic leader and truly believes in the mission of Project Interchange. In his own words, he believes the eyewitness experience in Israel is one of the most effective ways to understand the value of the U.S.-Israel relationship. While Mr. Stern has impacted the Jewish Community at the international and national level, he is also extremely influential in local Jewish and secular community associations. He has served as an advisor and a dependable colleague to local elected officials, business leaders, academicians and community activists. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate Mr. Stern on receiving this award. His significant contributions are much appreciated and greatly admired. I call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Stern and wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that embryonic stem cell research is legal. In the absence of the Federal Government, the States are already taking the lead. California is at the forefront of establishing a robust embryonic stem cell research program. New Jersey has followed suit, and seven other States are in the process of doing so. We do not want our stem cell research policies left to the vagaries of State electoral politics. The Federal Government in general, and NIH in particular, must be involved. The less NIH is involved with its time-tested methods and procedures, the less we are assured of good ethical guidelines and scientific methods will be followed. Instead, we will have more and more individual States attempting to set up their own regulatory schemes, something they may or may not be equipped to do. Opponents argue that it is the product of a utilitarian world view, that somehow this is a zero-sum game, if the Members will, in which life is taken in order to give life. I think the strictures that are established by H.R. 810 negate that argument. Under this bill, Federal research will proceed using those embryos not used in fertility clinics, embryos voluntarily given that would otherwise be destroyed, that is, embryos that held the promise of life but are certain not to fulfill that promise. What we are doing is extending the potential life where otherwise there would be none. I urge passage of H.R. 810.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I introduced House Resolution 280 to honor the immeasurable contributions of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans to our Nation. I want to specifically thank our distinguished Majority Leader for scheduling this resolution during May, which the Congress has designated as ``Asian Pacific American Heritage Month'' since 1978. ' The month of May is important to Asian and Pacific Islander Americans because of two key events. The first occurred on May 7, 1843, when the first Japanese immigrants to the United States arrived. The second important event took place on May 10, 1869, a day known as ``Golden Spike Day,'' as the first North American transcontinental railroad was completed. The Central Pacific Railroad, which was built heading east from Sacramento, California, and the Union Pacific Railroad, built west from Omaha, Nebraska, met near the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Ever since, the country could be traversed by rail from coast to coast. This momentous accomplishment was made possible by thousands of rail workers, the majority of whom emigrated from China. Like Black History Month in February, Asian Pacific American Heritage Month was established by an act of Congress. A former member of this body, Frank Horton of New York, led Congress to first establish ``Asian/Pacific American Heritage Week'' through Public Law 95-419 in 1978. Each year, the Week was to begin May 4 to include the important dates of May 7 and May 10. Then, in 1992, Congress expanded the commemoration to designate the entire month of May as ``Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month.'' I am pleased the House is celebrating this significant designation today. The Census Bureau revealed last year that 5 percent of the total U.S. population is of either Asian, native Hawaiian or other Pacific island heritage. As an example of their achievements, half of Asian-Americans over age 25 have earned a college degree, the highest proportion of college graduates of any ethnic group in the U.S. The corresponding rate for all American adults is 27 percent. In addition, as the War on Terror continues, it is relevant to recognize the more than 300,000 Asian and Pacific Americans who have served our Nation in the armed forces. Asian and Pacific American service men and women are fighting on foreign soil today, and their sacrifices should be deeply respected. Indeed, they have performed with incredible valor during our Nation's history. Asian Pacific American Heritage Month 2005 is being celebrated in numerous settings from community festivals to school events across the country. This year's theme--Freedom for All--A Nation We Call Our Own-- is very appropriate to the more than 14 million U.S. residents of Asian and Pacific island heritage who call America home. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 280.