Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on May 17, I was participating in the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan and, therefore, missed three recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 177, ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 178, and ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 179.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my Connecticut colleagues. This is really an extraordinary opportunity for us. I join the entire State of Connecticut in congratulating the University of Connecticut Women and Men Huskies for becoming the first school, ever to have both their college basketball programs win the NCAA National Championships in same year. It is extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely extraordinary. The Male Huskies overcame early adversity in winning their second national championship since 1999. Despite several injuries, the UConn Huskies simply would not be denied their second national championship in 5 years. Led by Academic and Athletic All-American Emeka Okafor, junior sensation Ben Gordon at shooting guard, senior leader Taliek Brown at point guard, sharp shooter Rashad Anderson at forward, and freshman force Josh Boone, the Huskies were a force to be reckoned with. I would also like to commend the hard work, the extraordinary work, of Jim Calhoun. He has given us years of tremendously exciting basketball. I commend him for so many things but also to say he overcame prostate cancer to become one of only three active coaches to win multiple national championships. The Huskies demonstrated quickness, great outside shooting, and stifling defense; but in the Final Four in San Antonio, they demonstrated their greatest trait, resilience. They made us a little nervous, but they demonstrated their extraordinary resilience. Despite trailing 41 to 34 at half-time in the semifinal game against Duke, our nemesis, I think of that last-second shot and feel like they have gotten their just desserts since then. The Huskies battled back, led by Okafor's rebounding and his 18 points to win the game 79-78. I just love it. It was an amazing afternoon. In the national championship game, the Huskies played nearly flawless basketball to beat the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets 82 to 73. The perennial champion UConn Lady Huskies won their third straight national championship and fourth in 5 years. That is a dynasty. It is an extraordinary dynasty. The Lady Huskies, led by one of the greatest women players ever to play the game. In fact, my staff said one of the greatest. I want to say the greatest. No one close. Diana Taurasi and her fellow starters, Ann Strother, Jessica Moore, Barbara Turner, and Maria Conlon, would not be denied a three-peat. Unlike the previous 2 years, the Lady Huskies had to battle back from early season setbacks to finish the season as the number one team again. I would also like to commend Geno Auriemma, who has put together a streak of unbelievable seasons. He is only the second coach ever to win three straight national championships, and he has five championships total. In the national championship game, the Huskies jumped out to a 17 point lead and managed to hold off perennial opponent, the University of Tennessee, eventually winning the game 70 to 61. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate these young men and women not only for their tremendous basketball ability but also for being such extraordinary role models for Americans of all ages. I am so proud of each and every one of them. I truly am just in awe of what good kids these young men and women are. They have made us proud. They have given us extraordinary exciting times, and there is always the anticipation that there is more good to come in the future. Right, I ask the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons)?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Aloysius P. Kelley, S.J., the seventh and longest-serving President in Fairfield University's history, who plans to retire on June 30, 2004, after 25 years of service. Father Kelley's decision marks the end of a tremendously successful 25-year tenure during which Fairfield University has become one of the preeminent Jesuit schools in the country. As the longest serving president of the nation's 28 Jesuit colleges and universities, arriving at the University in 1979, Father Kelley has presided over the graduation of 64 percent of Fairfield's 38,000 alumni. During his tenure, Father Kelley worked tirelessly in collaboration with the University's faculty, alumni, parents and friends to achieve extraordinary results. He has overseen facility expansion that has transformed the campus, including the construction and acquisition of 14 new facilities and the renovation and expansion of 12 others. The student body and faculty of Fairfield University have been strengthened over the past 25 years. On the undergraduate level, Fairfield this year set an all-time record in the number of applications, with 7,655 for 850 seats in the incoming class. During Father Kelley's tenure, the average combined SAT score for the entering class has increased from 1,065 to 1,197. Fairfield's admission for this year's entering class placed it among the top five percent of four-year colleges and universities in the nation in terms of selectivity. The intellectual environment thrived during Father Kelley's tenure This is the end of an extraordinarily successful era. Under Father Kelley's leadership, Fairfield University has experienced dramatic growth and success. To top it all off, the institution's endowment has increased from under $2 million in 1979 to $131 million currently. Father Kelley will be greatly missed. He leaves a strong legacy and bright future on which his successor may build. I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Father Kelley for his tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that global warming is happening and that man is contributing to it. Now, it is our responsibility to work to mitigate the impacts of potentially catastrophic climate change. It is clear we must begin taking steps to reduce U.S. emissions and the Climate Stewardship Act lays out a scientifically sound, economically feasible and environmentally progressive formula for doing so. By limiting the combined global warming emissions of major polluters, creating a trading market for emissions allowances and reductions through a National Greenhouse Gas Database, and funding transition assistance for workers, industries and consumers, this bill takes a responsible first step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is timely, meaningful and cost-effective. The Climate Stewardship Act targets emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors, which together account for 85 percent of overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. (Starting in 2010, the bill would cap U.S. aggregate emissions for the covered sectors at the 2000 level. The bill's emissions limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors.) It applies a successful, market-based approach to reducing emissions, and the result will be cleaner air and a healthier environment. The Climate Stewardship Act charts a new, more responsible course on climate policy and reflects a cognizance of the very real threat global warming poses to our Nation and the rest of the world. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I was in New York City for meetings to discuss a number of homeland security issues with various officials and, therefore, missed two recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted. ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 94 and ``yes'' on recorded vote 95.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett). I want to say, this is an important debate, but only in Washington when we spend nearly $2 million more for veterans do people call it a ``cut.'' And when my colleagues talk about tax cuts, 5 percent of the American people pay 50 percent of the taxes, and 50 percent of the American people pay 96.3 percent of the taxes. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to read a quote of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). He said, ``I promise on this floor and again tonight, I will to the best of my ability and knowledge not vote for one penny more spending than President Bush asked us to spend, period. But let us stop blaming spending unless my colleagues are willing to control spending, and that means all spending. We cannot just pick out that which we like because in the economy it is all spending.'' My only point to my colleague is, he is against deficits but he finds ways to spend more on the farm bill. And I understand it; he is sensitive to the farmer. I just want to make the point that I understand where my colleague is coming from. We all have programs we like, but when we had the farm bill, which we are not opening up, I had a problem as an easterner because I knew it was breaking the budget. But it was a program he liked and he had passion for it, and I understand it. That is the problem with this place. We all have the programs we like. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would say to my colleague who was speaking that he had me until he started to remind me of all the new spending that the gentleman advocated in the farm bill. The two most tragic things that happened, in my judgment, is we broke the budget with the farm bill, and then we saw the steel quotas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to point out to the gentleman, we are not cutting veterans, we are increasing it nearly $2 billion. Only in Washington when you spend $2 billion more do people still keep calling it a ``cut.'' Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say we cut taxes to generate economic activity. In this budget, we are looking to have no tax increase for the next 5 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We heard from the Democratic presentation more spending and more taxes. Once again, our budget is based on three key principles, strength, growth and opportunity, which we will discuss in greater detail during the course of this 6-hour debate; Before handing this off, I would like to make a few observations. From 1997 until 2001, the books of the Federal budget showed that we were running a surplus. For the 40 years prior to that, the country was running deficits. I was proud to play a role in crafting the budgets in the 1990s that not only got us to balance, but got us there ahead of time. We did it by cutting taxes, controlling the growth of spending, and growing the economy. But beneath the positive balance sheet of the government, there were many other deficits that we would soon have to address. Many have suggested the projected surplus was squandered as if it simply disappeared into thin air, but we intentionally acted to shore up the areas in which we had serious deficits. As a result, we have a budget deficit today. To suggest that we should not have recognized and dealt with the economic downturn and recession, the needs of protecting the homeland, or providing the resources to our military is extraordinarily shortsighted. Now that we have begun to address these areas, however, it is appropriate that we focus attention on the need to control the deficits, and this budget does just that. There are only three ways to balance: one, raise taxes; two, grow the economy; or, three, control spending. While some have argued for raising taxes, we think that is completely the wrong approach and not the approach that was successful when we balanced the budget in the 1990s. We think the right thing to do is the same thing we did last time we set out to balance the budget: control spending and keep growing the economy. For all of the talk we have heard about the deficits, we can just about guarantee that during this debate, most of the rhetoric on the other side will be either direct or thinly veiled calls for higher spending across the board and higher taxes. That is exactly what they did in the Committee last week. In one year alone, they would raise taxes $28 billion and raise spending $28 billion or more.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Just to respond to my colleague and say when the Alternative Minimum Tax was passed by Democrats. Republicans warned that it would be not just a tax on the rich but it would be a tax on all income producers.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SHAYS. When we tried to eliminate it in the past, we were told we were eliminating it for the wealthy. And, in fact, we were saying, it is not a tax on the wealthy, it is a tax on the middle class. This tax does need to be eliminated. It was passed, regrettably, by our Democratic colleagues, and it is a heck of a problem to get rid of now, but we need to.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the recent horrific terrorist attacks on commuter trains in Madrid, Spain tragically underscored the vulnerability of railroad and mass transit systems to terrorist attacks. It is time we identify these vulnerabilities and make the necessary changes to improve our safety. Congressman Ruppersberger and I have introduced the Anti-Terrorism Mass Transportation and Railroad Carrier Act of 2004, which is the companion legislation to a bill introduced by Senator Sessions in the Senate. This bill takes tangible steps to protect the millions of Americans who use our transit systems and increase punishment if a terrorist is able to conduct an attack. Under current law, an attack on a train is treated differently than an attack on any other mass transit system. We believe clear federal jurisdiction is needed to send the message to would-be terrorists: they will face the full force of law. Under our bill, perpetrators would face up to 20 years in prison if an attack causes material damage to a railroad or mass transit system, and the death penalty if the attack results in any deaths. Our bill would also broaden the definition of ``domestic and international terrorism'' to provide law enforcement with tools to combat and prevent attacks on mass transportation and railroads. Specifically, our bill would make it easier for law enforcement officials to detect and disrupt terrorist plots against mass transit systems in the planning phases by allowing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications if sufficient evidence existed. Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with the terrorist threat in a forceful, decisive manner. While much remains to be done to improve railroad security in our country, this bill takes an important first step.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 557. A year ago this week a remarkably successful military campaign began against Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship. As we honor the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who waged this battle and the Iraqi people who strive to establish a free and open society, we reflect on the tremendous sacrifice they have made and on the hard work that remains to be done. We knew ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and introducing democracy to Iraq was not going to be easy. During four trips to Iraq since April, I have seen the strength and courage of our forces as they worked alongside Iraqis rebuilding schools by day, and risking their lives patrolling those same streets by night. At the 1-year anniversary of military action, we extend our heartfelt thanks to the men and women of our military who continue to sacrifice in Iraq. We also honor the Iraqi people who, by signing an interim constitution, have taken a bold step in the pursuit of freedom.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, in passing the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) back in 1995, Congress affirmed a very important principle: if a law is right for the private sector and the rest of the federal government, it is right for Congress. In passing CAA, we brought ourselves under 11 labor and employment laws from which we had previously been exempt, but it has become clear our work is not complete. Today, we introduced the Congressional Accountability Enhancement Act to try to further curtail the double standard that exists between Congress and the private sector by bringing Congress under even more of the laws it has passed for the rest of the country. Specifically, the CAA omitted Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in places of public accommodation--like Member's offices or the Capitol building--to Congress. Additionally, CAA did not include whistleblower protections or require that the disabled have equal access to all electronic information, like Members' websites and committee hearing broadcasts. In addition to extending these important protections, the Congressional Accountability Enhancement Act would ensure Legislative Branch employees are protected from discrimination or termination for serving jury duty, declaring bankruptcy or having their wages garnished for debt--protections inadvertently excluded from CAA. We don't tolerate those kinds of discrimination in the private sector, and we certainly should not make excuses for them here in Congress. We have a responsibility as the Nation's lawmakers not only to lead by example, but also to share the burden we ask others to bear. The bottom line is, Congress should not be above the law. Our bill will help ensure we live by the laws we've passed.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I believe people competing for a job should be judged on the strength of their candidacy, not on their gender, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, or their religious beliefs. Supporting this amendment was not an easy decision for me. I have grappled with this issue for years because the Civil Rights Act includes an exemption for religious organizations, but I have come to believe that, where Federal dollars are involved, Congress should not condone discrimination on any grounds, even on religious grounds. With the help of tax dollars, faith-based organizations are able to provide a wide range of social services to their communities, but allowing them to discriminate against those who wish to be of service, simply on the basis of their religion, casts a shadow on the wonderful work these groups are doing. I understand some faith-based organizations would prefer to have ideologically consistent staffs, but I believe a person willing to take a job with a religious group and commit to advancing the mission of that group can do so whether or not they believe personally in the institution's message. And I believe any candidate who can excel in the workplace, will be able to do so regardless of his or her religious convictions. The bottom line is, holding one set of religious beliefs does not preclude someone from effectively providing services and even advocating another set of ideas. For that reason, being Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu should not hinder a person's ability to perform the functions of a job they are intellectually qualified and willing to do.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do know. I was touched by the gentleman's comments. But I feel that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who yielded back time, may want to be yielded some time to talk about that no-call and explain what the heck happened, so I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to explain how the Bulls won that game.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a positive vote on this very important resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking members, for agreeing to bring our bill to the floor so expeditiously. I also would like to thank my friend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for joining me in introducing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, during the 107th Congress, we passed the FHA Downpayment Simplification Act, which streamlined the downpayment process and increased the base mortgage amount limits for FHA-insured loans. By increasing access to these loans, Congress helped make the dream of owning a home a reality for many first-time homebuyers. In passing this legislation, however, we made a seemingly inadvertent change to the law regarding what kind of residential projects qualify for increased loan payments. We restricted the projects that are eligible for increased loan limits to those which contain less than five units and take steps to improve energy efficiency. Before the FHA Downpayment Simplification Act, this provision read that increased loan limits could be granted to projects that contained less than 5 units or are taking steps to improve energy efficiency. The net effect is large projects that want to employ energy-efficient measures are not eliminated from receiving FHA mortgage insurance. The need for additional high-quality, affordable housing cannot be overstated. Our bill will correct the mistake and restore FHA mortgage insurance for large residential projects that are also energy efficient. This is win-win legislation that will help stimulate construction of more responsibly built, affordable housing units, create jobs, and encourage investment, and it obviously is also environmentally responsible. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for bringing this bill to the floor so quickly, and I encourage its swift passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material thereon.