John Yarmuth

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the recorded votes for rollcall Nos. 192 and 193. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' for both measures.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, for too long, many of America's toughest challenges have gone unaddressed while massive debt was piled on the backs of our young generations. Now, this Democratic-led House has proposed a budget that takes our Nation in a new direction and reaches balance in 5 years while lowering the deficit. By contrast, the President's proposed budget does not achieve balance at all, despite his promises to do so. The House budget also puts in place pay-as-you-go spending principles, finally requiring our government to balance and prioritize spending the way all American families must do. Restoring fiscal integrity is not only good for the budget's bottom line, but it is also important in protecting our national security, since much of our Nation's debt is owed to foreign governments. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget resolution begins the process of restoring fiscal integrity to the leftover Republican mess of reckless spending and massive deficits. It is time for a balanced budget that meets the needs of American families without mortgaging our future to foreign interests.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, we began this week by solemnly marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, the more than 3,200 brave soldiers who have been killed there, and the 378 billion dollars that have been appropriated thus far. But we end the week with the historic opportunity to bring about an end to this catastrophe. Over the last 4 years, the President not only failed to provide a plan to win in Iraq, he failed to offer our troops concrete and attainable objectives. Where he has let down our forces and the American people, Congress has a Constitutional obligation to step in, and this, ``The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act,'' is our chance. It is our only real chance, to see this war end, to comply with the stated will of the American people, and to bring our troops home. It is important to remember that this bill does more than set benchmarks and a timeline; it also provides much needed funding to protect our troops abroad and care for our veterans at home. A vote against this bill is a vote for the President but against our soldiers; it supports the war but abandons our young men and women in uniform. That being said, whether we authorize it or not, the President will find the funding to prolong this war, even if it is at the expense of our soldiers, our veterans, and other crucial programs. This country cannot afford another Walter Reed, nor can it afford to send the President another blank check to indefinitely extend this occupation. The President has asked for a bill without strings attached. He doesn't deserve a bill without strings. In 4 years of acting without strings, this war has never had an end in sight. We have before us today the opportunity to bring finality into view, and I urge my colleagues, members of the Senate, and President Bush not to squander this opportunity. I ask that we unite in support of Iraqi independence, U.S. troops, and H.R. 1591.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, we were all outraged by stories of how wounded soldiers are being treated at hospitals all over our Nation and how many are forced to weave through bureaucratic hurdles to receive the benefits they were promised. We cannot continue to neglect the needs of our veterans and our soldiers wounded in combat. That is why the Democratic emergency supplemental bill provides substantial funding increases for equipment that will better protect our troops in the field and the necessary assistance to meet our obligation to help those who were wounded. The Democratic supplemental bill provides $313 million more for new vehicles called mine resistant ambush protection vehicles, which will resist improvised explosive devices. Our bill also provides critical funding for soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. Madam Speaker, the Democratic emergency spending bill shows a real commitment to both our soldiers still in the field and our troops wounded in combat. It deserves our support.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the American people are demanding a change of direction in Iraq, congressional Republicans are more than willing to provide the President another blank check to continue the status quo. After 4 years of incompetent planning and bad projections, it is time that Congress hold both the Iraqi Government and the Bush administration accountable. And yet Republican leaders continue to say we should just give the President what he wants, no questions asked. That is what the old Republican-controlled Congress did six times. Later this month, the House is going to have a choice: give the President another blank check to move ahead with the status quo in Iraq, or take the war in a new direction. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Accountability Act is that new direction. Far from being micromanagement, as many Republicans call it, this legislation sets policy for equipping our troops, policy for refocusing the war on terror, and policy for a responsible redeployment. I urge all of my colleagues to seriously consider this change in direction.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget perpetuates more of the same wrong priorities that have failed the American people over the past 6 years. One of the most egregious offenses of his proposed budget this year is that, while he calls for nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy over the next 10 years, he once again refuses to fully fund our homeland security programs. In fact, his budget provides only a 1 percent increase, despite numerous unmet homeland security needs. The President drastically cuts grants to first responders, State homeland security and firefighter assistance, and eliminates programs like local law enforcement terrorism prevention, staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, and metropolitan medical response. He even freezes funding to secure critical infrastructure needs like our ports, railways, and transit systems. Mr. Speaker, giving tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of protecting the homeland is not the priority of most Americans. Democrats will fight for a budget that makes keeping our Nation safe a top priority.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the reference that the gentleman from New Hampshire just made is an interesting segue into something that has been of very great concern to me, because often when we hear from those who are touting the glory of the American economy, and certainly, we are all proud of our American economy throughout history, but on many occasions, they say the economy is doing so well, the stock market is at record levels, or at least it was until earlier this week, and productivity is great and corporate profits are great, why is it that the middle class is complaining? And there is this disconnect between those people who say we look at these big numbers and statistics and the average lives of everyday Americans. One of the things that occurred to me when I was on the campaign trail all during last year, one of the incidents that I heard about I thought was a perfect example of why this disconnect sometimes exists. We had a situation in which a warehouse, a distributing company, with 800 employees was sold to a company from out of State. The new employer came into that company and said, all of you employees have had your jobs terminated, they are now terminated, you can all reapply, you can reapply for 20 percent less salary and you will have no benefits. I said, well, now according to macroeconomics and statistics, there are going to be 800 new jobs created because these are all new jobs. Now there are 800 jobs lost. That is in another column somewhere, but the 800 jobs are created. Unemployment stays exactly the same because those same 800 people are employed, and yet 800 people had their lives devastated, their standard of living decreased by 30 or 35 percent, and yet all the numbers look rosy. So sometimes, as we all say, statistics can say whatever we want them to say, but in fact, when we talk about productivity and corporate profits and all of those things, it is oftentimes, and in most cases, does not reveal a lot of the stress that the middle class and the average working family are under, even though the administration touts these wonderful figures from above.

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my distinguished colleague. And you talked about kind of historic developments and how we got to where we are. One of the things that we also lose sight of sometimes is that the widespread concentration and consolidation of corporations in this country has also made it more of an unlevel playing field for the American worker. When we have a corporation, we might have a small business that is then bought out by a larger business that is then bought out by some corporation from four states away, and all of a sudden not only is that worker detached economically from the bosses, but he is also detached geographically from those bosses. And he or she is not even able to negotiate anymore with the people who set the policy for the corporation. So as we have had this massive and widespread consolidation of corporate power in the country, we have also seen the playing field get more and more unlevel for the average worker. And it is not like a century ago when employers had two or three employees. Now, there are thousands and thousands of employees, massive policies, corporate stock, shareholder driven motivation to make more and more profit. And the power of the individual worker to shape his or her own destiny is reduced even more. And one of the things that I think is unfortunate about the debate we had today is we tend to speak in polarizing terms, and it makes it seem like we who supported this act think that every corporation is evil and every employer is evil and that every union is without sin. And of course, that is not the case. And, in fact, in my district, there are numerous examples in which corporations and their unions have dealt with the issues of the economy in an incredibly cooperative manner. And when times got rough, the employers went to the union and said, ``Here is the situation.'' They were transparent, they explained the situation. The unions said, ``We don't want the company to go bankrupt. We want to help.'' They made concessions. They agreed to match wages that may have been in other lower priced settings. And the converse has happened. When we have had good times and the employers say, ``Wow, we have got all this work. Let's renegotiate the contract because we need to get more employees in here and we need help.'' So it can work. And I get the impression that when those people who oppose the legislation that we passed today, and I haven't had the opportunity yet to say how proud I am of what we did and I am extremely proud. But those people, when they oppose this bill, it seems to me they are saying we want to protect the employers who aren't good because the employers who are good and bargain in good faith and treat their employees well will have no fear from this legislation, they will welcome it, because they are already dealing with their employees on a good-faith basis. It is those people who don't bargain in good faith that we need to pass this bill to resolve.

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague. Before I get to that, I want to get to another part of the myth, and this is related to my colleague from New Hampshire, who talked about kind of the stigma attached to unions, and so much, I think, of what the stigma that is attached to unions and also the psychology of management is that if you are an entrepreneur, if you are building a company and you are running that company, then you think you should have a say in exactly how it has been run. I have been an entrepreneur, my late father was, my two brothers are; and I know the mentality, that you started something and all of a sudden you think you should have nobody else telling you the rules. You should be able to set all the rules, and ultimately that is a self- defeating proposition because the only way to get the buy-in of your employees and to get really loyal employees is to treat them as part of the entire endeavor that you are involved in. I know that a lot of people in this country tend to form their impressions of certain dynamics in society by what we see in the movies, and a lot of people probably look at ``On the Waterfront'' and old movies and say these are the unions that we are threatened with. I had a great experience at the beginning of the last campaign. I had a meeting with six or seven labor union leaders, and I took my son, who was then 22. We had a wonderful 2-hour meeting in which we talked about all the issues from all different perspectives. On the way home, my son, who had never been exposed to any union activity, said to me, Dad, that was really interesting. The only thing I ever knew about unions was what I saw in the movies. These guys aren't at all like those people in the movies. These guys are really smart. Of course, that's the truth, and not only were they and are they smart people, but they also understand economics. They also understand the pressures that are on employers as well as on employees. As I said before, there are all sorts of myths that permeate the labor management debate in this country, and most of them are not true. We have several we have heard throughout this debate on the floor, including the one my colleague from Iowa discussed, the whole notion of the secret ballot and eliminating the secret ballot. Of course, this law does not eliminate the secret ballot if the employees choose to have a union organization process that involves a secret ballot. They are perfectly entitled to do so. It is just that they are not burdened with that exercise if they don't want to be. This seems to be the height of fairness. We are not denying them the secret ballot. If they want a secret ballot, the majority of the employees, they can have a secret ballot. But we haven't heard that from the other side.

Mr. YARMUTH. Yes, I do. I associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Iowa and also from Minnesota and Mr. Hodes, you as well. We face a situation in this area of labor management relations, just like many of the other situations we face in this country, where oftentimes, the problems are very complex and there are no perfect answers. And I don't think that any one of us here today thinks that this is a perfect answer, the Employee Free Choice Act, or that we are going to in any way, in one step of this body, correct the inequities in the economy. We always are looking for the best possible answer. We are trying to be fair. We are trying to make life better for the most people we can and the greatest number of people we can. And this does that. As the world gets bigger and bigger, as corporations consolidate and get bigger and bigger, the power of every man and woman to determine his or her own fate gets less and less. And in our small way today, a significant way, but in a small way, I think we have begun to reverse a slide of imbalance in the economy and a slide to total inequity and helplessness on the part of American workers. During my many stops at picnics last summer, I ran into a man who was in his early 50s, and he had worked for Winn-Dixie, the grocery company, 23 years. And Winn-Dixie had gone out of business. They had gone out of business because of competitive reasons. Nobody was going to help that. And yet, he had built up $150,000 in his pension fund. And when Winn-Dixie went out of business, he was left with $30,000, so he had lost 80 percent of his life savings because of the situation with Winn-Dixie. He was forced to take another job, a job he was not prepared for, not physically or emotionally, probably, and he was struggling to get by. But the point of the story is, that we are not going to be able to correct every wrong and right and save everybody's pension or protect everyone's livelihood through our actions. But we can take steps, when we see institutionalized imbalance in the economy, an imbalance of power, particularly when it is balanced against the working men and women, we can take steps like the Employee Free Choice Act and make a difference and make a difference for millions of Americans. So once again, I salute this body today for the action that it took. It is a significant step on behalf of the American working man and woman, and I am proud to be a part of this body today.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Chairman, this week, opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act have tried to frame this debate as unions versus workers. I don't think it is working, but what a miraculous bit of political gerrymandering it would be if it did. The opponents are trying to create the illusion that somehow unions and workers are on different teams. But the truth is that in today's economy, the only consistent advocate for America's workers, both union and nonunion, have been America's unions. This bill isn't employers versus employees, and it is certainly not unions versus workers. This is simply Americans for America, because when our working families thrive, all of us benefit. Therefore, on behalf of not only the employees, who are the backbone of our economy, but on behalf of all our citizens, I urge my colleagues to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Kentucky, I rise to honor former Congressman Gene Snyder. Because we find ourselves both as a Congress and a country working to dig ourselves out of a divisive partisan trench, which in recent years has been characterized by petty attacks and contentiousness, my constituents may be surprised to know that I counted Gene Snyder as a friend. Gene, who was always more interested in the public than publicity, told me a story about a persistent reporter who badgered him about a meeting he wanted to cover. Gene didn't want the reporter at the meeting and refused to disclose the location. So when Gene spotted the reporter in his rearview mirror tailing him to the meeting, Gene said to heck with it. He told his aide to head for the mountains, and led the reporter on a 100-mile wild goose chase through Virginia. Now, as a former member of the news media, I won't applaud that tactic, but I admire the competitive spirit it exemplified. In any event, that was the last time that reporter tried to get the best of Gene. Although Gene and I enjoyed each other's company, you would be hard- pressed to find more than a handful of issues upon which the honorable Gene Snyder and I agreed in the political arena. But political issues are only one part of this job, the other being serving one's constituents. As far apart as we sat on the ideological spectrum, Gene Snyder's model of constituent service is one I aspire to closely emulate. In his three decades of service, Congressman Snyder set the example of how to serve a district. He set the bar, and he set it high. When Gene held my seat, we in Louisville knew that we had a representative with an open door and an open ear for all of us. If it concerned our community, no matter, big or small, was unworthy of his attention. He welcomed us warmly, shared a laugh, and left us with a feeling that something would soon be done to address anything from a clerical glitch to the need for a new highway. Inevitably, and remarkably, for an age when distrust of a power-hungry government dominated, the issue would be handled effectively and expediently. As I now work to institute my own open door policy, I am consistently cognizant that I follow the example set by a predecessor and a friend, Gene Snyder. I look to him has a fervent believer that democracy stems not from politicians, but from the citizens we represent, and I endeavor to capture that spirit as he did. Gene Snyder was my representative, he was my friend, and he will be greatly missed. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring his life and service to his constituents.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to honor the three members of the Tuskegee Airmen from my home district: Morris Washington, Alvin LaRue, Julius Calloway. Sixty-five years ago, legally mandated bigotry permeated every aspect of civilian life. Opportunities for a Black man or woman were few, for the most superficial of reasons: the color of their skin. Still, when Congress demanded the formation of an all Black Army Air Corps unit in March of 1941, hundreds signed up for the 99th Pursuit Squadron to defend the country that oppressed them. These brave men became the Tuskegee Airmen, and they did more than merely enlist. Ten months later, America found itself in the thralls of the Second World War. But despite showing remarkable aptitude--96 was the lowest score among all their flight tests--a deep sense of racism blinded their commanders to the proper and necessary action, and the Airmen were initially left out of combat. But as the conflict wore on, necessity sent these dedicated and capable men of valor into the skies where they deftly completed mission after mission, giving America a vital thrust in our efforts to defeat the Axis powers. In their legendary P-51 Mustangs, the Tuskegee Airmen astonished their doubters by prevailing against the Nazis who frequently outnumbered them. Soon, the Airmen were known for the prowess rather than their race and inspired a legend that they had never lost a single man to enemy fire. By the end of the war, they had flown more than 15,000 sorties on 1,500 missions and were awarded two Presidential Unit Citations, 744 Air Medals, 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, several Bronze and Silver Stars, and most recently a Congressional Gold Medal. Though officially recognized for their heroic accomplishments, the Airmen returned home to a nation still paralyzed by racial hatred and two more decades of legalized segregation. Every citizen who enjoys the freedom that America offers owes a debt to these courageous men who, rather than seek revenge, chose to look past there own oppression and see the potential of their Nation's greatness. We are ashamed of the treatment they received and hope to follow their example, building a society where racial bigotry can be found only in the annals of our history books. I am proud that three of these heroes, Morris Washington, Alvin LaRue, and Julius Calloway, still call my district of Louisville, KY, home. I am honored to represent them and hope that you will all join me in giving them the recognition they deserve.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago I was just like most other Americans, trying to evaluate the President's plan to invade Iraq. Unlike most Americans, I was writing a newspaper column and was expected to take a public position on such a national policy. But like most Americans, I was unburdened by the classified and faulty intelligence provided to Members of Congress. I concluded and wrote that the claims made to justify the American invasion of Iraq were baseless, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States, that Saddam Hussein was not in any way connected to the 9/11 attacks, and finally that Iraq was not a safe harbor for al Qaeda. I also concluded and wrote that we were rushing into Iraq with no idea of what we would do after the Iraqi regime fell, and also that we had no plan for getting out. The point of all of this reminiscing is not to show that I was so smart, nor is it to say that I told you so. Four years later, as our men and women are still dying in Iraq, the American people know everything there is to know about the situation there. We know as much if not more than the President of the United States. And our ideas about the conflict are just as valid. That is why this resolution is so important and this debate so significant. Tomorrow we will be voting on what may be only a nonbinding resolution, but it is a resounding and unequivocal expression of the National will. This is not simply a group of Congressmen and women explaining their votes. It is the echo of an overwhelming majority of Americans who are demanding a new direction in Iraq. It is the sound of scores of people like me who were sent here by citizens to turn the ship of state around. During this momentous debate, we have heard from some on the other side of the aisle that this resolution and the discussion we are having somehow undermine our national interest. I believe they are selling this institution short. We are displaying for the world what a government of the people, by the people and for the people truly looks like. What we are doing here this week speaks far more clearly and loudly than our bullets and our rockets and even our dollars. When the United States Government so clearly and dramatically reflects the will of its citizens, we may not shock the world, but we make it watch in awe. James Madison wrote that the role of Congress is to expand and refine the public view. He accurately perceived that on most issues Americans assume that their representatives will consider their opinions and work out the details. In the present situation, I believe the American people are shouting at us that it is time to get our men and women out of harm's way in Iraq. I will cast my vote not simply to oppose the President's escalation, but as a statement that this Congress will no longer abdicate its responsibility to expand and refine the public view. Mr. Speaker, today I am as confident about my position as I was 4 years ago. I am confident because I have listened to those who oppose this resolution. I hear only disingenuous rhetoric. The other side accuses us of trying to micromanage the Iraqi conflict, then says we should have our own plan. They say that we are dishonoring our fallen heroes, but then offer no strategy for honoring them other than to simply send more brave soldiers in their place. They continue to talk about victory and defeat, while virtually everyone agrees that we could never identify or define either. They say this resolution is an empty political gesture, and then say it is tantamount to surrender. What they do not give us, and more importantly what the President of the United States has not given us, are any reasons to believe that we are succeeding in Iraq, that the current plans increase the odds of our success, that we are any closer to eliminating the threat of terrorism, or finally that the United States is enhancing its image around the world as the beacon of freedom. We who support this resolution honor and respect our troops. We care deeply about the international reputation of our country. We are unequivocally committed to our Nation's security, and we desperately want America to succeed. By supporting this resolution, we undeniably succeed, because we honor our Nation and its citizens who have entrusted us with the simple, but grave, responsibility to listen to them.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 82 into the Record.

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

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution and join me in honoring the ``Ville on the Hill,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to commemorate the University of Louisiana Cardinals' first BCS victory, and I can hardly believe the words coming out of my mouth. To say that this moment was unthinkable to the football world 25 years ago is an understatement. After decades of lost games and revenue, the Cardinal football team was on the verge of packing it in for good. Denny Crum had won a national championship and had just taken the basketball team to its third Final Four in 4 years, and for a town and school that had grown accustomed to winning, faith that next year's football team would be different became harder and harder to come by. But then athletic director Bill Olsen found a believer in the most unlikely of places. Fresh off a national championship and Orange Bowl win of his own, Howard Schnellenberger returned to his old hometown to resurrect the Cardinal football program from the burial ground of college never-had-beens. And he did just that. In only 10 years at the helm of the University of Louisville, Coach Schnellenberger tripled the number of bowl wins in the school's history and laid the foundation for the program that John L. Smith and Bobby Petrino built into a perennial winner, which this year earned a trip to its ninth straight bowl game. The ascent of the Cardinal football program emblemizes a ubiquitous spirit at the University of Louisville, not just in athletics but in all programs, in all walks of life. When the FDA approved the first completely effective cervical cancer vaccine last year, it was two scientists from the University of Louisville, Ben Jenson and Shin-je Ghim, who were credited with the discovery. At Louisville's Jewish Hospital, U of L faculty performed the first three successful hand transplants in the United States and implanted the world's first successful artificial heart. And 3-year-old Chase Ford became the first child to regain the ability to walk after a spine injury, thanks to the work of U of L researcher Susan Harkema. U of L also ranks first among major research universities in National Institutes of Health funding growth and just became the only higher learning institution in Kentucky to promise a debt-free education to students from low-income families through their landmark Cardinal Covenant program. This spirit of success was exemplified by Orange Bowl MVP Brian Brohm, who never failed to live up to the tremendous hype that followed him to the school. His dedication to his team and his hometown grew all the more evident when he chose to bypass an NFL draft in which many predicted he would be the first player chosen so that he could continue his dream of playing in a Cardinal uniform. Receiving 10 of Brohm's passes in the final game and tying the Orange Bowl record, Harry Douglas also captured the spirit of Louisville all season long and set the single season record for receiving yards at U of L with 1,265. These two, along with a committee of skilled runners and receivers and an unmovable offensive line, created an offense that seemed to score at will. Coupled with an impenetrable defense led by Nate Harris, William Gay, Amobi Okoye, and special teams anchored by Art Carmody, the Nation's best kicker, they formed the greatest football team in the history of the University of Louisville. While the Orange Bowl victory is unprecedented in our community, it epitomizes the dedication, work ethic, and success that we in Louisville have come to expect from our flagship university. I stand here today to commemorate one win that served as a exclamation of a stellar season, but the victory is far from fleeting. This Orange Bowl and this 12-win season serve as a benchmark of long- term success; and as athletic director Tom Jurich hands the reins to new coach Steve Kragthorpe, there is no one left in the football world who is not confident that he has handed him a winner. For the players who personified greatness on the field and the coaches who led them, for the program that defied the odds, producing the greatest team in its history, and for the university that consistently acts an example of excellence, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H. Res. 82, commemorating the 2007 Orange Bowl champion, U of L Fighting Cardinals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 521 and H.R. 335.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of California at Santa Barbara men's soccer team on their 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association championship. After a tough, hard-fought game, the Gauchos of UC Santa Barbara claimed the 2006 NCAA championship by a score of 2-1. I would also like to congratulate the UCLA Bruins, the opposing team in the final game, on a well-played season. The Bruins had a season record of 14-6-4 and had three players named to the NCAA All-Tournament team. Although the UC Santa Barbara men's soccer program appeared in the championship match twice in the last 3 years, this is the school's first men's soccer title and the university's second Division I title in athletics. They accomplished many successes this year beyond the NCAA championship. The men's soccer team also won the 2006 Big West regular season championship and had a record of 17-7-1. The team was led to victory by head coach Tim Vom Steeg, assistant coach Greg Wilson, assistant coach Neil Jones, and goalkeeper coach Erick Foss. Also assisting the team was the UC Santa Barbara director of athletics, Gary Cunningham. Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate the student athletes, coaches, and the University of California at Santa Barbara on their 2006 men's soccer team's achievement. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 70) congratulating the University of California at Santa Barbara men's soccer team, the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Champions, as amended.