Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee, Mr. Price. (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the debate that we have had here today. I think everybody at this point understands, as Mr. Gohmert just reminded us, I remember learning as a young student in school, when they had us put our heads down on the desk and vote for class president, it was secret ballot. As Mr. Blunt reminded us, we used to have open ballots, and about 100 years ago it was changed to secret ballot. Now the Democratic Party is trying to reverse that and take away from workers rights their opportunity for a secret ballot. We need to vote against this bill. Vote for this amendment and against the underlying bill. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our minority leader.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and to this rule. The bill we are scheduled to debate today, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, represents what I believe is the worst piece of legislation I have come across in 20-plus years of public service. What is wrong with it, let me count the ways. Number one, it undermines the secret ballot process in the workplace, a process all of us in this House rely upon, treasure, and would fight to defend when it comes to our own political careers, but apparently for some, not when it comes to the rights of workers. Number two, it leaves workers wide open to coercion and intimidation from those seeking to organize in the workplace. In an Education and Labor Subcommittee hearing last month, a former union organizer described such coercion through a practice organizers call a ``blitz.'' In a blitz, organizers go directly to the homes of workers to get them to sign an authorization card. And how do they find out where these workers live? From license plates and other sources that were used to create a master list. According to this witness: ``Workers usually have no idea that there is a union campaign under way. Organizers are taught to play upon this element of surprise to get `into the door.' '' Number three, it strips workers of their right to privacy in organizing elections and makes their votes completely and utterly public so their co-workers, their employers, and union officials know exactly how they voted. Number four, not only does it strip workers of their right to vote in organizing elections, but it also strips away their right to vote on contracts as well. Instead, that right is given to a third-party mediator. Number five, it levies civil penalties upon employers if they coerce an employee during a card check campaign. However, the bill remains silent on coercion from unions, looking the other way and providing tacit approval for such intimidation. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I can go on and on. In short, this bill is not only undemocratic; it is dangerous. And I will be proud to manage time in opposition to it in just a short while. When I think about how important secret ballot is, I remember when I first learned about it in grammar school. When we would elect our class officers, we put our heads down on our desk and raised our hand for the person we were supporting because it was important then, just as it is important now, that when we vote, no one knows how we vote. From those days in elementary school until now, having been elected many times to office, I prize the importance of that secret ballot. And I prize that secret ballot for the workers that are facing intimidation, the possible intimidation from either side, from labor or from management. They should be free of that, and the only way they can be free of that is secret ballot and that is what we are trying to preserve for them at this time. Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee in support of several amendments that would have made this debate as fair, open, and robust as possible. While I am pleased that they made in order my substitute amendment, this rule before us still is harsh and one that will stifle debate. Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to strengthen this debate and address head-on the many flaws of the underlying legislation, but we were denied that opportunity; and as such, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy that Ms. Watson talked about all the other accomplishments of SC while I just talked about the football team. The football team was great, but it is nice to see that they are doing all of these other wonderful things, and I commend them for it. I urge our colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 126. This resolution recognizes the University of Southern California football team for yet another great season, winning the PAC-10 conference as well as their dominating 32-18 victory over the University of Michigan in the granddaddy of them all, the Rose Bowl. USC has put together one of the best coaching staffs in the country, and this game was proof. Early in the second half, Michigan had made it clear to USC that they could not establish the run. Now, former USC offensive coordinator Lane Kiffin said, ``We're not running the ball for another play.'' And for the next 30 plays USC took to the air, rushing the ball only twice. The ability of Coach Carroll and his coaching staff to change the game plan mid-game and make personnel adjustments is what separates USC from the rest of the country every year, and led them to their Rose Bowl victory. Today, when you hear about USC winning the Rose Bowl and finishing the season as the fourth best team in the country, it doesn't sound like too much of an accomplishment, that is until you look at this team and see that they lost two Heisman trophy winners, six key pieces in their offense in the first three rounds of the NFL draft, and lost 11 players overall to the NFL before the season began. I extend my congratulations to Head Coach Pete Carroll, his coaching staff, and every one of the dedicated players, the fans, and to the University of Southern California. I am happy to join in honoring this exceptional team and also of its accomplishments and wish all involved continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Chairman Miller for bringing this legislation, for his kind words, and the opportunity to work together, something that will benefit students who are in great need of this extra help. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 990, the Pell Grant Equity Act. I thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Miller, for his work on this legislation. I also thank Ranking Member Keller of the Higher Education Subcommittee and Chairman Hinojosa for working with us on this measure. The Pell Grant Equity Act will repeal a Federal rule known as ``tuition sensitivity.'' This arcane rule reduces the annual maximum Pell Grant for students attending institutions with very low tuition charges. In a time when we are trying to keep the cost of education down, we penalize students that choose to go to a school that is charging less tuition. It seems like we have it really mixed up, and I am glad this bill is coming out to help us change that. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, a student should not be forced to sacrifice grant aid because of their choice of one institution over another. As Congress and the President work to continue improving student aid programs, it is illogical that certain students who may otherwise be eligible for a maximum Pell Grant won't get it simply because of where they go to school. Moreover, repealing this rule takes away an incentive for some low-cost institutions to raise their tuition in order for their students to become eligible for the maximum Pell award. The tuition sensitivity rule is estimated to impact between 90,000 and 100,000 students each year, with these students losing hundreds of dollars in grant aid annually, the students that need it the most. With many California community colleges reducing their cost of attendance this semester, the tuition sensitivity rule is expected to have an even more substantial impact for students in that State if not corrected. So I am especially pleased, just as I am sure Chairman Miller is, that this measure will benefit many of those seeking postsecondary education in our home State. Mr. Speaker, I must say that as much as I support this bill, I wish it could have been the law of the land much sooner. This measure was included in the College Access and Opportunity Act, which the House passed last year to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Similarly, had House Republicans, or anyone else for that matter, been able to offer this as an amendment to H.R. 5 earlier this year, I would have done so. As is often the case in Washington, it is better late than never. I am pleased to support this measure which helps students and is fully paid for in accordance with the budget rules. Again, I thank my colleagues. And I hope we can find more opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on college access down the road. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Keller, such time as he may consume.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to sing the praises of the Purple Raiders. When I heard Mr. Regula talk about all of their accomplishments and then the 98 percent graduation rate, that really is impressive. I would like to meet Coach Kehres one day. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 103. This resolution congratulates the Mount Union College Purple Raiders for winning the 2006 NCAA Division III Football National Championship. The Purple Raiders captured the title by defeating the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Warhawks 35-16 in the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl on December 16 in front of 6,051 faithful fans. Since 1990, and under the tutelage of Head Coach Larry Kehres, the Raiders have made 16 playoff appearances while posting college football's most wins and best winning percentage. Coach Kehres completed his 21st year at the helm of the Purple Raiders football fortunes in 2006 and has built one of the most successful programs in all of college football. His teams have won 17 Ohio Athletic Conference Championships while posting 15 undefeated regular seasons and have won nine Division III National Championships in the last 14 years. Along the way, Coach Kehres has compiled a phenomenal 246-20-3 record and the best career winning percentage for a head coach, at any division level, in the history of college football. For his efforts, Kehres has been named the AFCA Division III National Coach of the Year eight times. I extend my congratulations to Head Coach Larry Kehres, all of the hardworking players, the fans, and to Mount Union College. I am happy to join my good friend and colleague Representative Regula in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments and wish all involved continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I have great respect for him, and I know of his strong dedication to the troops and to the people serving. I had in my office yesterday a constituent, a young man that played football for my brother at home. I introduced him to the chairman. He has spent the last 3 years at Walter Reed. He says he is like one of those dinosaurs that has a big mouth and two hands that he can't use, and he does struggle, and he has a bad leg. He was a master sergeant and he protected his troops but he took rounds from mortar. In talking to him he said, this debate is very distracting and hard for the morale of the troops. I pray that they will understand that all of us have different feelings, but we do understand their devotion and their commitment to duty, and they understand our commitment. We just see things differently, and at the end of the day, I hope what we end up doing is what will be best for our troops and for our country and for the world.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63 and in support of a just cause that is facing a critical turning point. The outcome hangs in the balance, and, Mr. Speaker, we should not kid ourselves into believing that victory is foreordained. Churchill once said that there would not be war if both sides did not believe that they could win it. The enemy we face in Iraq and in the broader war against the radical Islamists is driven by an apocalyptic vision of God, and because such apocalyptic visions are rooted in faith and not facts, they are very hard to dispel. We, therefore, face an opponent who is neither open to reason nor to compromise, nor will he necessarily be defeated by calculations of military strategy and prudence. We face the paradox of a perilous time. At the opening of the 21st century, we are opposed by an adversary who preaches the savagery and barbarism of the 12th century. We face in Iraq an enemy that will allow us absolutely no quarter, and, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that I think we in this chamber, and, indeed, even in the country at large, have been slow to grasp that fact. However, the difficulty of the fight should not dissuade us from waging it if the cause is just, and the cause is just. Mr. Speaker, I have had the sad duty to attend the funerals of several of the servicemen killed in Iraq who come from my district. There are those who say that we should not withdraw from Iraq because to do so would mean that they died in vain. That is not correct. Nothing that we have done or will do will ever subtract one ounce from the valor and nobility of those who have died in the service of their country. As Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.'' However, we should pause to note that our service men and women are fighting and sometimes dying because they know the terrible price that will be paid if our adversaries prevail. They have seen, as I have seen when I traveled to Iraq, what a world our enemies would have us live in. It is a world filled by a grotesque and distorted vision of God. It is a world of slavery and submission, where the Almighty is not a benevolent and loving creator of his children, but rather is a pagan idol that demands blood sacrifice and glories in the murder of the innocent. You need look no further than the carnage in Baghdad, or Kabul, or Mogadishu, or never let us forget the Twin Towers, to see the truth in that axiom. That is what our enemy, for all his talk of God, seeks to do, and we are all that stands between our adversary and the realization of this nihilistic vision. Mr. Speaker, there are those in this House who are far better versed than I in the strategy and military calculations that are the essence of this conflict. There are those who say that we mistakenly entered the war in Iraq on the basis of flawed intelligence. This, I think, underestimates the nature of our adversary. Given the expansiveness of our enemy's nightmare vision, I think it is safe to say there would have been a war in Iraq no matter what we did. That, of course, will be for historians to decide. But this much I do know: We stand for hope. We fight for peace in a world that is free. We sacrifice now so that the little children that I met when I was in Iraq might live in a better world tomorrow, and because they will have a better world, we Americans will live in a safer one. To quote DeGaulle, ``Behind this terrible cloud of our blood and tears here is the sun of our grandeur shining out once again.'' Mr. Speaker, I do have one concern. I think that we in this Congress have allowed too wide a gap to develop between the society we help to govern and the war we have been compelled to wage. We have to correct this, because we will not win this war in Iraq or beyond unless we as a Nation come to grips with what we face and begin to act accordingly. We must never forget, to quote Lincoln again, ``Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.'' Right now I look around me and I see a Congress and a country distracted, and nothing could be deadlier to our security and our hopes for a better future. To some extent, this is understandable. America is and has every right to be tired of conflict. In 1917, for the first time we went ``over there'' to make the world safe for democracy. In 1941, in Churchill's evocative phrase, the new world stepped forth, yet again, to the rescue and liberation of the old. Then after 1945, we stayed on to wage the long twilight struggle that came to be called the Cold War. Then, in 1989, a miracle. We stopped holding our breaths. The Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union disappeared. The hair trigger nightmare of the nuclear world seemed to recede. We came off of the figurative tip-toes on which we had been standing for nearly 50 years. We had grown so accustomed to it that when the Cold War ended, we scarcely realized just how nerve wracking, and what a strain, it had all been. Now here we are again. More war, more sacrifice, more death. It is not a pleasant picture but it offers this. It offers hope. It offers an alternative to yet another in a long line of obscene and perverted visions that seem to be forever conjured in the minds of men. Mr. Speaker, I have dared to say today something that very few of us seem to be willing to say. We could lose this war. There is nothing in the stars that says we must prevail. In history, freedom is the exception, not the rule. So I say to my colleagues, we must press on in Iraq. We must fight wisely, but we must not falter. Churchill once said in the midst of another terrible war, ``Give us the tools and we will finish the job.'' Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this House and of this Congress and of this Nation to give our men and women the tools they need to see this conflict through to the end. We must send them the reinforcements they need to win this war--and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided resolution. Most of all we must stand together. That way, when our children and grandchildren look back at this moment in history, they will say that at the threatened nightfall the blood of their fathers ran strong.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. Last month, after the new Majority rushed an unbalanced minimum wage bill to the floor without following regular order and without opportunity for amendment, I spoke from here and explained to my colleagues that I believed it was a colossal missed opportunity. Now, about six weeks later, it's clear that a colossal missed opportunity is exactly what it was. From the outset, I joined many of my colleagues in insisting on protections for small businesses and their workers as part of a comprehensive minimum wage bill. I thank one of these colleagues, Mr. McCrery, for his work on the legislation before us. He joined me prior to our debate last month in introducing comprehensive minimum wage legislation that provides small business protections similar to those found in this bill. As a result of our action here today, when we finally send a final measure to the President, I am confident that it will look a lot more like our bill than it will the Majority's initial, unbalanced proposal. Small businesses create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98 percent of our new businesses. Since they are responsible for so much of our Nation's recent economic growth. they and their workers are counting on Congress to consider how any minimum wage proposal would impact them. And this legislation will help us do just that. More than ever, Mr. Speaker, momentum remains squarely on the side of those who want to act in a comprehensive way so small businesses and their workers are not left to fend for themselves in the face of a hike in the minimum wage mandate. And today, we're one step closer to sending President Bush a final product that doesn't saddle them with unnecessary burdens at the same time that they are creating most of the new jobs in our in our growing economy. This bill was crafted with that goal in mind, and because of that, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the motion under consideration. As the House debates this so called non-binding resolution concerning the recently implemented troop surge in Iraq, I think it is important to remind my colleagues exactly what is being sought by this resolution and what is to be accomplished with its passage. This ill-conceived resolution seeks to do two incompatible and indeed conflicting things; it attempts to speak for this chamber in disapproving the proposed troop increase. And it simultaneously claims to support those troops, whose devotion to duty is essential, in prosecuting a mission which is, in part, renounced by this very same resolution. Mr. Speaker, I do not question that the members who serve in this chamber do so with integrity and with a high regard for the men and women who serve in uniform. I do, however, question the wisdom of considering a resolution which will have no practical effect, but will have serious and inevitable consequences for the men and women who have been asked to serve. While we consider this resolution, our enemies, in prosecuting their side of this war--will little note its allegedly non-binding character. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, this is very much a binding resolution. It binds this House irreversibly to a statement of disapproval. But it will do nothing to change the situation to which it is nominally addressed, because it does not bind our words to any actions. General Peter Pace, in his testimony before the Armed Services Committee displayed confidence in our armed forces. He said that he believes our men and women in uniform understand the intricacies of our democracy and the nature of our vibrant debate in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would add that while they may understand our prerogatives, they will seek to decipher our intent and the resolve of this Chamber to support them in this fight. I also believe that they will rightfully see this resolution for what it is--mere contradiction. Without our continued commitment to the young democracy in Iraq, the political and security situation in that country will suffer tremendous setbacks. Without support from American troops and our allies, there is a greater chance of failure in Iraq. General Petraeus, Commanding Officer of Multi-National Force-Iraq, last month described what failure in Iraq would look like when he said that ``Sectarian groups would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand their turf. They would do that by greatly increased ethnic cleansing.'' Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a press conference last month said that if we fail, ``One would see an emboldened and strengthened Iran, a safe haven and base of operations for jihadist networks in the heart of the Middle East, a humiliating defeat in the overall campaign against violent extremism worldwide, and an undermining of the credibility of the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, these results are not acceptable to Americans because they are not in America's interest and because more turmoil in Iraq or the Middle East will unacceptably threaten our national security. Mr. Speaker, we know that among the strengths that our men and women in uniform possess is the courage to carry on. They are armed with the notion that no matter what inspires our enemies, we fight in defense of human dignity and natural rights. This chamber, which would say that it supports our troops, should not do anything that would lead those troops to question the meaning or sincerity of our support. I therefore encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous resolution, which in two short paragraphs declares principles while avoiding the actions those principles seemingly require.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for HR 356, legislation I introduced earlier this year to remove restrictions on 25 acres of land patented to the Mammoth County Water District. Prior to 1987, the District occupied this land through a special use permit with the Forest Service. Of these 25 acres, 12 acres were used for the storage of materials, and prior to 1987, for oxidation ponds, which had become obsolete by that year. After that time, Congress passed Public Law 97-465 that allowed these lands to be transferred directly to the District. While the law allowed for acquisition of these lands, it also directed that they could only be used for those purposes prior to the time of the conveyance. Today, however, these 12 acres are no longer needed for the storage of materials and the community would like to utilize this land in a more economically and socially viable manner. Such restrictions as those currently placed on the aforementioned acreage hinder the Mammoth community's ability to respond to the growing needs of its citizens and visitors. As such, passage of this legislation would allow the town to accommodate for the growing economic and social needs of the region. In particular I am pleased to inform my colleagues of plans to use these acres for enhanced emergency services availability for the people of Mammoth Lakes. I would like to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Rahall for bringing this legislation to the floor and ask my colleagues to support its passage here today.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 51, a resolution to recognize our Nation's Catholic schools and honor their important contributions to our students and our communities. I thank the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for offering this important measure. Roughly 2.3 million students attend more than 7,500 U.S. Catholic schools--more than one-fourth of them minority students. Year in and year out, these schools have made remarkable contributions to our Nation's intellectual growth. For example, on average, ninety-five percent of Catholic school students graduate, with eight out of every ten of Catholic high school graduates going on to pursue a higher education. While these schools are widely-known for their academic excellence, their contributions go far behind grade point average and graduation rates. Rather, Catholic schools also emphasize the moral, physical, and social values of our Nation's young people. And for that, their contributions simply cannot be quantified. Next week, our nation's Catholic schools, their students, and their families will be marking Catholic Schools Week for the 33rd year. Catholic Schools Week celebrates the quality of the education available to all students in Catholic grade schools and high schools across the U.S., and we wish them all the best during their celebration. As we prepare to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act and continue to work to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more fortunate peers, we also should recognize that if it weren't for our nation's Catholic schools and the dedicated teachers who serve them, the achievement gap today would be even wider. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution to honor Catholic schools, students, parents, and teachers for their ongoing contributions to education, as well as for the key role they play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for our Nation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my good friend from New Jersey talking about promises. My opponent during the campaign, and I don't know if this was the full Democratic Party, but what he said was they were going to cut student loan rates immediately in half. I know as we got here in Washington and they assumed the majority, we were told that that would cost about $60 billion. So they had to cut back that promise to what they have done now is a phased in approach that cuts the student loan interest rate ultimately at the end of 5 years to 3.4 percent for subsidized loans, which is considerably smaller than their original promise. I just wanted to correct the record with that. I am happy now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to correct the record a little bit. Last year, when we did the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we dealt with over 100 amendments, both Democrat and Republican, through the committee process that we have forgone today. And when we did take that money last year in the Deficit Reduction Act, we put over $9 billion back into students. What we did with that money for students, and these are students in school, we took the 4 percent loan fees that were being charged to many students and cut all loan fees to 1 percent. For the average borrower, that is, for students in school, it gave them a savings of $525. One of the problems we find is that students in their first and second years tend to drop out of school because they do not have enough money. So we gave them more of a chance to have their loans up front, and we increased those loan limits by $1,000 per year, from $3,500 to $4,500 for first- and second-year students. And we did some other things: High-achieving, low-income students in the first and second years are able to obtain additional grant aid. High-achieving, low-income students that major in math, science or certain foreign languages are eligible to obtain an additional $4,000 in grant aid for their third and fourth years of college, and on and on. We put $9 billion of that back directly into student and student aid. Madam Speaker, I now yield to another ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), such time as he may consume.