Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd like to just make further comments. This resolution has a special meaning to me, as the archdiocese of New York is currently under the spiritual guidance of His Eminence Edward M. Cardinal Egan, who was elevated to cardinal on February 21, 2001. In 1988, Cardinal Egan was appointed bishop of Bridgeport by Pope John Paul II. During his tenure in Bridgeport, I had the pleasure of working with him on a variety of issues, including developing housing for senior citizens. Cardinal Egan guided the diocese of Bridgeport and earned a reputation of demonstrated leadership and success in meeting both the physical and spiritual needs of the church's parishioners, and I want to say that he reached out to so many people, Catholic and non- Catholics alike, when there were specific needs that they had. He is such a respected individual in the district I represent, and we were so proud of his elevation to cardinal in New York and believe that he is doing a tremendous job. I will conclude by saying I was in his office after his appointment but he had not yet become a cardinal. He just kind of shook his head and said, I wish I was 10 years younger. So many demands are made on a leader like Bishop Egan, and he gives every day of his life to this service. So when I vote for this resolution I'm going to be voting for the 200-year anniversary of the diocese and for a really remarkable leader that they have in Bishop Egan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pence amendment as strongly as I can advocate. The Title X program provides comprehensive family planning services, as well as a wide range of other preventative health care services, including breast exams and instruction on breast self-examination, pap tests for early detection of cervical cancer or pre-cancerous conditions, testing for high blood pressure, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV screening, counseling or adoption, foster care and pregnancy termination referrals to specialized health care. Pursuant to Federal statute, no Title X funds may be spent on abortions. The question was raised, is it reasonable to ask us, members of Congress, to fund abortions when we find abortions so abhorrent? But that's not the question before us. The question before us is, is it reasonable to deprive women of reproductive information and services to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, even avoid the question of whether or not to have an abortion? And the answer is no. This is about family planning. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's leading reproductive health care provider. For over 9 years Planned Parenthood has provided low-income, uninsured and underinsured women with vital reproductive health care services they need. I'll conclude by pointing out Planned Parenthood operates health care centers in every State in the Nation, serving over 5 million, men, women and teens and their communities each year. The services Planned Parenthood provides are needed, and to deprive them of this funding, I think, would be a colossal mistake.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line to my point is, you take these young kids who in many cases have never had the opportunity to work, who work at a minimum wage, are providing a service in the community and are setting aside money for their college tuition. There is a stipend given to them for schooling. We have programs where we give a Pell Grant to a student who doesn't do a darn thing. These young kids have to earn it. I would just like my colleague from Arizona to rethink what he has said and what he is asking for. I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. SHAYS. I will include a longer statement for the Record, but I would like to say that I align myself with Mr. Barton and Mr. Castle. Mr. Barton described the $700 million that is basically siphoned off the NIH budget. But there is $300 million in addition that goes to the Global Fund. Last time it was $99 million. In this, we are taking another $201 million and siphoning it to the Global Fund. Why not just give it to the Global Fund directly instead of putting it into the NIH budget. I urge support of Mr. Barton's amendment, which will prevent funding from being transferred out of the National Institutes of Health and will effectively increase the NIH research budget nearly $700 million. Each year, 2.4 percent of NIH funding is reallocated for the Evaluation Tap, which provides nearly all the funding for the AHRQ (pronounced ARC), as well as some funding for CDC and SAMHSA. This leads to nearly $700 million being removed from the NIH allocation each year. Coupled with the $300 million being transferred to the Global Fund, the NIH has already lost nearly $1 billion before it spends its first penny. I do not oppose funding these other agencies, but it seems to me if Congress deems this to be a priority, we should fund these agencies with their own line items in the budget, not survive by siphoning off funding from other agencies. I do not believe we should require the NIH to give up part of its budget. While I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's work in this bill to increase funding for many of our critical health, education and labor programs, I was nonetheless disappointed by the NIH's relatively small increase of $750 million, or 2.5 percent. When the Global AIDS funding is transferred out, the increase is only $549 million, or 1.6 percent. The Barton Amendment will increase the funding available for the NIH's core function--medical research that saves and improves lives. I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. SHAYS. I have an inquiry. Had his time expired before I was interrupted?

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I'd like to speak on this amendment. I couldn't get to the floor fast enough. I have immense respect for my colleague from Arizona, but I think that he has confused the issues in a way that's very powerful until you look at it. This is a service program, and we're asking young people to serve their country. They're given a minimum wage. The last I knew people need food and money in order to stay somewhere. To ask an 18- or 19- year-old young person to serve without having the ability to buy food and to live somewhere strikes me as pretty remarkable. I view this as service just as I view serving in the military as service. This is something they do because they want to be part of a higher cause and we designed this program so it wasn't a one-size-fits-all. It's not this big government program. What we designed this program to do is to allow each of the States to create programs through nonprofit organizations and others, and we allow the States to choose which programs they want to fund. And that means you're going to have a lot of good programs and you are going to have some bad programs. You're going to have programs that really do a terrific job and some programs that don't do a good job. I congratulate the former administration for its willingness to design a Republican kind of program, a program that has a competitive model. You compete for these dollars on the State level, a program that allows you to have excellence at the risk of having something that may not work well. And what my colleague described about the failures of this institution doesn't mean we get rid of Congress because of some of the jerks that have served here and some of the outrageous things they have done. You find out where there are mistakes and you change them. So when there is a program that isn't auditable, we made sure that we audit these programs. I am a Peace Corps volunteer, but I confess that when I served overseas, they provided me housing and I confess that when I served overseas they provided me money to buy food. I was called a Peace Corps volunteer, and the reason why I felt that I was a volunteer was I was giving 2 years of my life in service to others. I deferred my career to some extent while my wife and I served in the Peace Corps and I think Mr. Walsh could say the same thing. Americorps is a program that takes 18, 19, 20-year-old kids who may never have had work before, gives them an opportunity to have work under a mentored program by various nonprofit organizations. You should see these kids, the thrill and the excitement that they have in being part of this program.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor and longtime supporter of H.R. 980, I am pleased this legislation is on the House floor today. This bill will take the important step of guaranteeing firefighters and police officers the right to discuss workplace issues with their employers. It troubles me to know in many states, public safety employees lack basic collective bargaining rights. Firefighters and police officers take seriously their oath to protect public safety and, as a result, they do not engage in work stoppages or slowdowns. The absence of collective bargaining denies these workers any opportunity to influence the decisions that affect their livelihoods. H.R. 980 recognizes public safety officers' unique situation by creating a special collective bargaining right outside the scope of other federal labor law. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, this amendment would increase the funding for the National Labor Relations Board by $500,000 and is offset by a decrease to the Department of Labor departmental management salaries and expenses. It is to allow the NLRB to start to reduce its cases. It's at 2 years now, and we're looking to reduce it. This is an amendment offered by Mark Udall and myself and Frank LoBiondo. The NLRB takes an extraordinary amount of time to review and render a decision on employment disputes. According to the NLRB, the median mount of time it takes from the filing of a charge to the issuance of the NLRB'S decision is over 2 years. The funding in the Shays-Udall-LoBiondo amendment will allow the NLRB to retain some of its full-time staff, which they otherwise would have to let go due to the pay increase for Government employees. It will also be used to train supervisors and new employees to ensure they are handling the cases efficiently and effectively, without sacrificing quality. Funding, however, is not the only answer to the NLRB's problems. We need to create deadlines to ensure the NLRB renders decisions in an expedient manner. Mark Udall, Frank LoBiondo, and I have been working on legislation to require the NLRB to issue their decisions promptly. The bill will require the NLRB to issue a decision not later than 9 months after the date on which the initial complaint was served. Should the Board not reach a decision within 9 months, it must transmit a report to Congress provide the reason or reasons the deadline was not met and what steps it is taking to reach a decision. One high-profile NLRB decision found the Smithfield Packing Company guilty of illegally assaulting, intimidating, and harassing its workers in Tar Heel, North Carolina, when they attempted to form a union in 1994 and 1997. However, the NLRB's decision that the employer used unfair labor practices did not come down until 2005. Taking this amount of time is an absurdity.

Mr. SHAYS. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to. Could I just recognize Mark Udall?

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, this amendment transfers $6.8 million from the Department of Labor Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses and $1.5 million from the Department of Education Departmental Management Account to fund a $6.8 million increase in the AmeriCorps State and National program. The additional $1.5 million is needed to fund corresponding increases to the National Service trust fund for reimbursement of student loans. This amendment will provide adequate funding to ensure that AmeriCorps State and National program will maintain the 34,000 full- time volunteer positions. Based upon the funding level in the legislation, the corporation will have to reduce its full-time enrollment by 600 positions and replace them with reduced, part-time positions. There is a great deal of support for increasing Pell Grants in this Congress, something with which I agree. It seems to me, however, that with Pell Grants, the government and our society get no direct return, whereas with AmeriCorps, recipients of this aid are required to perform service to their community and Nation. There is a stipend for education, but they have earned it through serving their country. To me, national service is one of the smartest investments our government can make. Not only is it a smart financial investment, but national service energizes our youth, empowers our volunteers and helps citizens make a very real, tangible impact on our communities. Madam Chairman, I concur that we are taking from an account that the chairman has some concern about. I would hope that where it is going would outweigh that. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. I rise to oppose this amendment not because of where the money is spent but where it is taken from. That is what I want to address. I had an amendment to try to restore funds for AmeriCorp programs to bring it back to the level of 34,000 AmeriCorp workers. We can call them volunteers; we can call them workers. I was a Peace Corps volunteer. Peace Corps volunteers are given whatever the minimum wage is in the countries where we serve. We are given a stipend when we return, a modest stipend. We are called a ``volunteer'' but we don't work for nothing. We have to have shelter provided as a Peace Corps volunteer, and we have to be paid something to buy food. AmeriCorp workers, ``volunteers,'' are given a minimum wage in order for them to buy food and to pay their minimum expenses like rent. They may have a 1-year assignment or a 2-year assignment. Most of these people are young kids out of high school who may never have even had a job before, and now they have a job as an AmeriCorp volunteer with this wonderful hope that they can use the 2 years, the stipend that they receive of about $4,600 a year, for college expenses, for educational expenses. Why would we increase a Pell Grant and not require anything of our young people, but we have an opportunity with AmeriCorp to have someone provide a service to their community, learn a skill and put aside money for education? They can't spend the stipend for anything other than educational needs. So I just really would encourage my colleague to reconsider doing this. It is destructive, I think, to the program. It is, I think, foolish to think that we would not want these young people gainfully employed in society. And I make this point particularly to my Republican colleagues. We helped write this bill. The Clinton administration was going to have a one-size-fits-all, and they said we will have a competitive model. We will run these programs State by State by State. We will have them be local programs so you have not the one-size-fits-all. The States then decide what programs competing on the State and local level should be funded. And the program really works well. I think, if anything, we should be adding more money to AmeriCorp, not less. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as I walked into this Chamber, Congressman McGovern said we need to work together to bring our troops home. He is right. But the resolution we will be debating today does not allow us to consider bipartisan proposals. There were a number of amendments presented to the Rules Committee, and they rejected all of them. The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Slaughter, can say, when Republicans were in control, they didn't do that, they didn't allow bipartisan amendments. That is about the most insignificant and meaningless statement she could make, because Democrats are now in charge, and they are in charge in part because of the war in Iraq and because they promised to be different and have open debate and allow us all to say what we needed to say and from that find consensus. There are two things I agree on: we need to bring our troops home, and we need a deadline to do that. But this deadline begins in 120 days and concludes by April of next year, guaranteeing absolute failure, laying waste to all the investment we have talked about. We need to bring our troops home, but not by the deadline that has been offered. It is the only deadline. So when I vote against what I think is a foolish deadline, the media is going to say exactly what my Democratic colleagues want them to say, that we voted against a deadline and that we are not sincere about bringing our troops home. Give me a deadline I can support, and I will vote for it. Give me an opportunity to at least debate a deadline that I could support. We are going to bring our troops home because we can't maintain this level of engagement in Iraq without extending troops from 15 months to 18 months. We are not going to allow that to happen. Our troops will be coming home, but not by April. They will be coming home in a more thoughtful way. I urge defeat of this resolution. In particular, it did not allow for the Wolf amendment, which was the Iraq Study Group proposal. This is what we need to be voting on. We all say that we agree with it and support it. Well, why not bring it to the floor? What are we afraid of?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I deeply admire Tom Lantos, my friend, whom I have known for so many years, and Ike Skelton, the authors of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about an issue we all have strong feelings about. I regret to say it's a debate that's under a closed rule that doesn't allow all aspects of this issue to come to the forefront, and I deeply regret that. We asked for a new Secretary of Defense. We wanted Rumsfeld replaced, and he was replaced by Secretary Gates. We asked for a new general on the ground and a new strategy, and General Petraeus was chosen. After all that he had already done, he was willing to step in. He received unanimous support in the Senate, unanimous support. He has asked one thing from us with this new strategy. He said, give me until September 15 to show what we can do with this surge. What this resolution does is it bypasses that. It basically, in my judgment, pulls the rug out from under General Petraeus. I think we owe it to him, unless he were to come back and say, we need to change our strategy right now, but he hasn't done that. In my 17 visits to Iraq, I have seen good months and bad months. Since December, I think it's pretty extraordinary that we have won back Anbar province, an all-Sunni province. The irony is, we had given it up, and it had become a mini Afghanistan with al Qaeda acting like the Taliban. The tribal leaders came to us and said, help us get rid of them. If we were not there to do that, they would be stuck with an Afghanistan with a Taliban type leadership in all of the Sunni area in Anbar province. But, fortunately, we didn't pull the rug out from under them. We are there to help them. I think there are at least two inconvenient truths that we are dealing with. One inconvenient truth is the one that Al Gore talks about, which I wish more of us paid attention to, and that's global warming. The other inconvenient truth is what the 9/11 Commission report says, we are confronting Islamist terrorists. Islamist terrorists have made it very clear that this is ground zero. If we were to leave Iraq, Iraq, in my judgment, would be like Afghanistan, with no troops to prevent the insurgents to do just what the Taliban did. I just hope and pray that we find a way to work together, that we look at bringing the Iraq Study Group presentation before us, because we all say we can support it. Let's build on what we can agree. I conclude by making this point. We ask the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds to work together and reach out to each other, but Democrats and Republicans are having a hard time reaching out and working together. Bring forward a bipartisan proposal and see how well it could do on the House floor.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 556, I am pleased we are considering the Senate amendment to this legislation, which passed the House earlier this Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. This legislation will require congressional notification for cases sent to second-stage reviews and automatically subjects all transactions involving foreign state-owned companies to a second-stage 45-day investigation. Last year, the attempt by Dubai Ports World, a port operations company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, to purchase operating terminals at 6 U.S. ports was a clear indicator the CFIUS process was in dire need of reform. Whenever a foreign investment affects our homeland security, it deserves greater scrutiny. It seems to me this legislation strikes the proper balance between strengthening our economy and protecting the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and move this bill to the President for his signature.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, this amendment would designate $1 million for the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, bringing the total for the office from $1.9 million to $2.9 million, enabling the bureau to hire two additional teams of investigators to speed up the review process for petitions. Presently, there are seven active petitions and nine waiting petitions, but there are 79 uncompleted petitions and there are letters of intent for 147. The fact is in the last 10 years they have granted to only two tribes through the process, and, as I remember, seven tribes were denied, out of a total of nine. This is a long process. It requires individuals with tremendous expertise to evaluate these petitions. I would note that when we create an Indian tribe, we create a sovereign nation. We create an independent nation within these United States. So this is very serious business. I would just point out that already this year we have bypassed the Bureau of Indian Affairs in one legislation that created acknowledgment for six tribes, and in a second legislation acknowledging another tribe. The argument was that the Bureau of Indian Affairs simply couldn't act as quickly as it needs to.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to acknowledge the good work of both the chairman and ranking member, not just on accepting this amendment, obviously, but the tremendous work in terms of the arts, in terms of our natural resources.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I love the introducer of this amendment, but I don't love her amendment. It would reduce a much-needed funding increase for the National Endowment for the Arts from $160 million in the bill to the President's requested level of $128 million. I first want to compliment the chairman and ranking member again for putting together a good bill that adequately funds our key priorities. Our national parks, the environment, and the arts receive strong support, and the bill takes a critical step to addressing climate change and global warming. We owe both of you a debt of gratitude for your good work here. The NEA has been shortchanged for too long, and it is time to ensure that it has the resources necessary to carry out its mission of supporting excellence in the arts, bringing the arts to all Americans, and providing leadership in arts education. With much-needed incremental increases since 2001, the NEA has developed widely popular programs, including the Big Read and Shakespeare in American communities, to encourage Americans to participate in cultural experiences. What is impressive is that it is in every community practically in the country: large communities, small communities, urban communities, rural communities. The arts improve the lives of so many people including children, the elderly, and those on limited budgets who might otherwise not have the opportunity to see some very beautiful, spiritual, and enriching performances. Federal funding helps enable talented individuals to pursue careers in the arts. Besides the obvious cultural benefit, the economic impact of the arts is real and impressive. As of January, 2007, there were 2.7 million people employed by over 546,000 arts-centric businesses, which represent 2 percent of our Nation's total employment. In Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, there are 2,841 arts businesses that employ 14,711 individuals. Last year all 435 congressional districts received at least one grant. For every dollar of Federal investment, each grant typically leveraged $7 of State and private investment. I grew up in an arts family. My parents, both performing actors, met in the theater. Listening to my father play the piano each night and hearing stories from their days on the stage gave me a profound appreciation for creative expression, an appreciation that I know so many of my constituents and I share and love. With that I would urge defeat of this amendment. We are spending a meager amount, candidly, on the arts on the Federal level. This is a noble attempt by the chairman of the committee to do what needs to be done, and I hope that we maintain what is in the budget. I thank the gentleman for yielding.